Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(155,871 posts)

15. I think the article is implying

Reply to Ms. Toad (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 23, 2025, 02:39 PM

Jun 23

that she originally got herself into this position by LOSING her main case at the SCOTUS regarding her refusal to follow the law requiring she issue marriage licenses for LGBTQ people. If she had won, she probably wouldn't be defending herself again.

She is now going through the repercussions of her poor decision via a civil process and is now battling her "punishment" up the line again.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 is still fighting Supreme Court's ruling [View all] BumRushDaShow Jun 23 OP

Oh the poor persecuted Christians BOSSHOG Jun 23 #1

Christian persecution in America. Ray Bruns Jun 23 #3

It's good to have a hobby I guess. Ray Bruns Jun 23 #2

Who's bankrolling her? Just askin'... mpcamb Jun 23 #4

From the article. .... reACTIONary Jun 23 #8

RWRE's Nigrum Cattus Jun 23 #14

This message was self-deleted by its author mpcamb Jun 23 #5

Who is funding her? Irish_Dem Jun 23 #6

The new right-wing extremist Southern Baptist Convention recently voted to bring cases to overturn LGBTQ+ rights. Lonestarblue Jun 23 #7

Pure evil to deprive Americans of their rights Irish_Dem Jun 23 #9

And trmp will give her a medal. louis-t Jun 23 #11

I bet she would've fought against Loving v. Virginia back in the day. sakabatou Jun 23 #10

This is a bit misleading. She's not "still fighting the Supreme Court's ruling" Ms. Toad Jun 23 #12

I think the article is implying BumRushDaShow Jun 23 #15

It was never really at SCOTUS. Ms. Toad Jun 23 #16

"The only SCOTUS involvement was to refuse to issue (without opinion) a stay of the lower court injunction" BumRushDaShow Jun 23 #17

This lady is lucky to have some nut case lawyers who keep pushing this case LetMyPeopleVote Jun 23 #13

Warning: Picture may not be suitable for viewing. twodogsbarking Jun 23 #18