 So, I'm not sure how many people remember Kim Davis, because this was a while ago, but if you don't remember her, allow me to quickly refresh your memory. Kim Davis is the Rowan County clerk from Kentucky who in 2015, after the Supreme Court held that states cannot deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she did just that. She broke the law, and as a result of her breaking the law, she went to jail because of it. And now she's being sued because she broke the law, and she's currently trying to get the case against her dismissed. However, lower courts said no, and they allowed the case against her to move forward, and now the Supreme Court has refused to grant her a writ of certiorary, which means that they are not going to hear her case. So basically, we're not sure where that's going to go with regard to Kim Davis, but that is not the most important detail. The reason why we're bringing up Kim Davis is because in the Supreme Court's denial of her writ, they said something really alarming about marriage equality, and the Burge fell the Hodges case, which is what led to her getting arrested and everything to begin with. So this is what CBS News reporter Melissa Quinn says. The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples under her name because of her religious beliefs, letting stand a lower court ruling allowing a lawsuit filed against her to proceed. The protracted legal battle involving Davis occurred against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's landmark 2015 decision in a Burge fell the Hodges, in which the court ruled same-sex couples have the right to marry. Although Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the court's decision not to take up the dispute in a scathing statement joined by Justice Samuel Alito, he criticized the Supreme Court's 2015 decision and said it bypassed the democratic process and left people with religious objections to same-sex marriage in the lurch. Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court's cavalier treatment of religion in its Burge fell decision, but she will not be the last Thomas wrote. Due to Burge felled, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Burge fell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws. Thomas said the high court's 2015 decision quote enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriages between one man and one woman as bigots making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss. This petition provides a stark reminder of the consequences of a Burge fell. Thomas wrote by choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment and by doing so undemocratically the court has created a problem that only it can fix. Whoa. So I want to repeat that last part of that sentence there. The court has created a problem that only it can fix. So what Thomas is saying is, listen, at the time when we ruled on this case, we had Kennedy on the court and he was the swing vote. But now Kennedy is not here and we want to hear this case. And if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, we're not just going to have a five four majority against this decision. We're going to have a six three majority enough comfortably to overturn this decision with ease. Now, I know a lot of people are going to say, well, Mike, the Supreme Court very rarely likes to overturn their own precedent. But let me burst your bubble. The Supreme Court is not some sort of principled judicial body that cares about upholding the sanctity of our Constitution. They don't give a shit. This is a political body. Stop fooling yourself into thinking that they actually care. This is a political body and they will make political actions if it is something that they have the power to do. They've proven time and again, it doesn't matter how far they take us back in history, they will do what they need to do to appease their base. And some of you may say, well, look, Justice Roberts oftentimes sides with the liberals, so he wouldn't let this happen. Except the problem with that thinking is Justice Roberts was in the minority in that case, which means he voted against the legal right to marry for same sex couples. So, yeah, they can overturn this decision. They don't even need Amy Coney Barrett. But if they get her, then they definitely can overturn this decision. And Clarence Thomas is saying that they want to overturn this decision. We want to revisit this case. Now, you can argue that, you know, maybe even though Justice Roberts, you know, back then he was against the same sex marriage, but as chief justice, you know, he has an interest in making sure that the court is legitimate, right? So why would he vote to overturn precedent that's just five years old? Doesn't that make the court look bad if they overturn a landmark case five years later? Doesn't he have an interest in making the court appear as if it's not a political entity? Well, I mean, sure, you can argue that, but it's not like we should be relying on Roberts to do the right thing when repeatedly he has done the wrong thing. And that's why they want to rush through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, because that gives them that cushion in the event Roberts does flip to where they can still overturn this precedent from five years ago. Now, as this person points out on Twitter, on the very first day of their new term, they're already saying they want to overturn Obergefell V. Hodges. And as incoming progressive lawmaker from New York, Mondaire Jones put it, due to Justice Kennedy's replacement in 2018, there is now a five three majority on today's Supreme Court that believes my ability to marry who I love is a novel constitutional right that should not exist. Amy Coney Barrett would increase the majority to six, expand the damn court. And I think he's right. We don't have time to be re-litigating these battles. We have same sex marriage in all 50 states. Why are we going to revisit that and undo it? There's no harm that's being caused. It is overwhelmingly popular. The individuals like Kim Davis, they are the fringe aspects of society. And it doesn't matter, even if they were the majority and, you know, they didn't want to see gay people have the right to marry. It doesn't matter. Somebody's religious predispositions doesn't override civil rights or civil liberties. And the fact that conservatives think that it does shows you that they're not serious like people like Clarence Thomas should not be on the Supreme Court because these are ideologues. They're not interpreting the Constitution objectively or impartially. These are ideologues trying to carry out the Republican Party's agenda. And the quicker that people on the left and liberals realize this, that the court is deeply political and stop folding themselves, the quicker we're going to realize that we have to fight fire with fire and do things like Mondair Jones suggested here, expand the court. Because again, we shouldn't be re-litigating these battles. We fought this battle. We won. Why are we going to wage this war again? It's ridiculous. Now, in the event, the Supreme Court did decide to rehear same sex marriage and the constitutionality of it. And they overturned the president that they set in 2015. Understand what that would mean for thousands, if not millions of gay people across the country. That means if they get their health care through their spouse, they lose it like that. If they're getting social security benefits from their spouse who recently passed away, they lose it like that. There are more than a thousand federal benefits that go to same sex couples. I mean, the devastation would be horrible. Thousands of lives would be rumored if the Supreme Court got their way, if Clarence Thomas got his way and actually overturned the president that they just set in 2015. So this is very serious and we don't have time to be considering the political ramifications about whether or not it's a good idea to back the Supreme Court. We don't have a choice. These are battles that have been fought for for decades and to just have them overturned like that because there is a Supreme Court majority, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. It's unacceptable. It's not even a question. So they should absolutely be fearful of a growing court if they choose to fuck around and do something like this. See, the reason why Clarence Thomas is saying this is because he doesn't think that liberals are serious when they kind of flirt with the idea of expanding the court. He knows at the end of the day, they're going to back down, which is why he's saying this, because he doesn't really see any threat from liberals or the left. He doesn't think they'd actually expand the court and it doesn't matter what they do. So he thinks they could comfortably do whatever they want. Reverse precedent that they've wanted to reverse take the court in a very bad direction. We're looking at a Lochner era on steroids if they get their way because they don't care. These justices are not elected. So they don't have to worry about their election campaigns. They're there forever until they're ready to call it quits or they die. So if they want to do some ghoulish shit like this, there's nothing stopping them, not even the threat of expanding the court because they know that Joe Biden isn't going to do something like that. And as a result, people are going to suffer. We're going to see Obergefell be overturned. We're going to see Roe v. Wade be overturned. And things are going to get worse and worse until they actually are reigned in because they know that the Democratic Party is serious about this. But I don't want to take the time to dog on the Democratic Party for not fighting because we don't necessarily know what they will or won't do. The fact that they want to do this shows you what a horrible party the Republicans are. I mean, what are they offering people? I know these are justices, but the party overall, they stand for nothing. They just want to go backwards, destroy what little progress we've made when it comes to climate change, rollback civil rights that communities have fought decades for. And that's all that they want to do. Just take us backwards. They are the definition of regressive. And if they get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed, they can do anything they want. Now, COVID-19 has postponed the hearing of Amy Coney Barrett. If you have multiple Republican senators, including two that sit on the Judiciary Committee, not able to do these hearings right away, then, you know, that is going to put a little bit of a damper on their plans. But the problem is they can still confirm Amy Coney Barrett after this election. Even if Donald Trump loses this election and Republicans lose the Senate, they can still rush through this confirmation before the new Senate comes to power, before Joe Biden is sworn in in January. So they can do a lot of damage. All they need to do is get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed. And even if she's not confirmed, I mean, they're still in a great position. They can do whatever they want. So if we're not talking about expanding the court, then we are not serious about protecting the most vulnerable people in this country, because as Mondare Jones said, you know, expand the damn court. That's it. You have to. We don't have a choice. Again, we don't have time to relitigate these battles. We have to move forward and fight the existential threats to humanity, climate change, get health care to America. But we can't do that if we keep fucking getting dragged backwards. Over these battles that have already been fought and won. So, yeah, this is horrifying. And I hope that people understand how important the Supreme Court is.