Both namesakes of Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, are opposing the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney BarrettAmy Coney BarrettOn The Money: Power players play chess match on COVID-19 aid | Pelosi bullish, Trump tempers optimism | Analysis: Nearly 1M have run out of jobless benefits Overnight Energy: Barrett punts on climate, oil industry recusals | Ex-EPA official claims retaliation in lawsuit | Dems seek to uphold ruling ousting Pendley Amy Coney Barrett is beacon for new kind of feminism in America MORE to the court Tuesday.
“We ask the Senate to vote no on this nomination,” Jim Obergefell, who was the plaintiff in the case, said in a livestreamed press conference on Tuesday. “Judge Barrett’s well-known stances on marriage equality, trans equality and other issues represent a serious risk to our civil rights and our ability to form and protect our families.”
Rick Hodges, who represented the Ohio Department of Health in the case, said Barrett’s confirmation could jeopardize “all Americans [being] treated with full dignity and respect regardless of who they are or whom they love” and benefiting “equally and fully from government services.”
ADVERTISEMENT
“I can’t stress enough how important I believe it is that the two opposing sides of such a momentous ruling can stand together as friends and defend the LGBTQ+ communities,” Obergefell said.
The two were joined by Democratic Sens. Sherrod BrownSherrod Campbell BrownPlaintiff and defendant from Obergefell v. Hodges unite to oppose Barrett’s confirmation Congress must repeal tax breaks for the wealthy passed in CARES Act Democratic senators unveil bill to ban discrimination in financial services industry MORE (Ohio), Patty MurrayPatricia (Patty) Lynn MurrayPlaintiff and defendant from Obergefell v. Hodges unite to oppose Barrett’s confirmation Overnight Health Care: Trump takes criticism of Fauci to a new level | GOP Health Committee chairman defends Fauci | Birx confronted Pence about Atlas Government watchdog to investigate allegations of Trump interference at CDC, FDA MORE (Wash.) and Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenPlaintiff and defendant from Obergefell v. Hodges unite to oppose Barrett’s confirmation Senate Democrats call for ramped up Capitol coronavirus testing House Democrats slam FCC chairman over ‘blatant attempt to help’ Trump MORE (Ore.).
The press conference, which was organized by LGBTQ rights organization Family Equality, comes amid concerns that a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court could put LGBTQ rights at risk.
Click Here: cheap all stars rugby jersey
Two of the dissenters in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justices Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasPlaintiff and defendant from Obergefell v. Hodges unite to oppose Barrett’s confirmation The Senate should evoke RBG in its confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court’s Pennsylvania mail ballot ruling tees up test for Barrett MORE and Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoPlaintiff and defendant from Obergefell v. Hodges unite to oppose Barrett’s confirmation Supreme Court’s Pennsylvania mail ballot ruling tees up test for Barrett Supreme Court denies GOP bid to block extended mail ballot due date in Pennsylvania MORE, criticized the ruling earlier this month in another dissent after the court allowed a lawsuit against former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis to proceed. Two gay couples are suing Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses to them in 2015.
In the same conference, Brown expressed openness to expanding the Supreme Court, a strategy many on the left support. Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenTrump and advisers considering firing FBI director after election: WaPo Obama to campaign for Biden in Florida Supreme Court reinstates ban on curbside voting in Alabama MORE has previously said he is “not a fan” of the idea.
“Depending on what happens — what happens to the [Affordable Care Act], what happens to Roe v. Wade, what happens to marriage equality — all things are on the table,” Brown said.