Hold onto your hats, folks—the U.S. Supreme Court just sidestepped a cultural lightning rod by refusing to hear a challenge from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who dug in her heels against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
According to NCR Online, on November 10, the justices turned down Davis’s appeal, leaving intact the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that cemented same-sex marriage as a constitutional right across the nation.
Let’s rewind to 2015, when Davis, then a county clerk in Kentucky, made headlines by flat-out refusing to grant a marriage license to a same-sex couple, citing her personal beliefs.
That decision landed her in hot water, with a federal jury later ordering her to pay a hefty $100,000 in damages and $260,000 in attorneys’ fees to the couple she denied.
Davis’s appeal wasn’t just about the money—it was a bold push to get the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell, the landmark 5-4 decision that tossed out state laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
This was the first major attempt to unravel that ruling, but the justices, perhaps wary of reopening a settled cultural debate, said “no thanks” to taking up the case.
Many legal minds saw this coming, questioning whether Davis’s case had the chops to challenge such a significant precedent as Obergefell.
Robert George, a Princeton legal scholar, noted, “One question undoubtedly in the minds of some justices is whether, despite its being wrongly decided — and a usurpation by the judiciary of democratic legislative authority — the doctrine of 'stare decisis' counsels leaving the decision in place.”
Translation: Even if some justices think Obergefell was a judicial overreach, the principle of sticking to past rulings might keep them from touching it—especially in a case as messy as this one.
Mathew Staver, Davis’s attorney from Liberty Counsel, didn’t mince words, stating, “[Kim Davis] was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings.”
While one can sympathize with Davis’s conviction, the law isn’t a feelings-based system, and Staver’s promise to keep fighting Obergefell feels like tilting at windmills when the Court won’t even hear the case.
Justice Clarence Thomas has hinted in past writings, like his concurrence in the Dobbs decision, that Obergefell and other due process precedents deserve a second look, a point Davis’s team leaned on heavily in their petition.
Yet, as Notre Dame’s Rick Garnett pointed out, this case never seemed like the right vehicle for such a monumental reversal, predicting the justices would pass on it due to its narrow, fact-specific nature.
On the flip side, voices like William Powell from Georgetown Law celebrated the outcome as a victory for same-sex couples, affirming their right to marry without fear of local officials playing gatekeeper.
While the Respect for Marriage Act of 2022 offers a federal safety net for existing same-sex and interracial unions, the broader cultural clash over marriage’s definition—echoed by groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who opposed Obergefell—shows this debate is far from over, even if the Court stays on the sidelines for now.
Hold onto your hats, folks—there’s a storm brewing among Senate Democrats as a progressive lawmaker calls for Sen. Chuck Schumer’s head on a political platter.
Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, has openly demanded that Senate Democrats ditch Schumer as their leader after a messy vote to reopen the government amid a 41-day shutdown, spotlighting a rift over healthcare subsidies and party unity, The Hill reported.
For 41 days, the federal government has been shuttered, leaving Americans frustrated and lawmakers scrambling.
During this deadlock, Schumer, alongside House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, pushed hard against a House-passed funding bill, arguing it failed to extend critical Affordable Care Act subsidies.
Most Senate Democrats held the line, rejecting the bill 14 times on the Senate floor.
But on Sunday, the dam broke when eight members of the caucus—including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire—voted to move forward with the Republican-backed plan to restart government operations.
Enter Rep. Ro Khanna, a Silicon Valley progressive, who didn’t mince words on social media, blasting Schumer for failing to keep his team together on such a pivotal issue.
“Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Khanna declared, adding, “If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”
That’s a sharp jab, but let’s be real—when a party can’t rally around protecting something as fundamental as healthcare access, it’s no surprise folks are questioning the coach’s playbook.
Khanna isn’t alone in his critique; Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin piled on, pointing to Schumer’s apparent reluctance to back a Democratic mayoral candidate in New York City and his perceived weakness in negotiations.
Such public infighting isn’t just a bad look—it’s a signal that the progressive wing feels sidelined by leadership’s inability to secure wins on policies they hold dear.
After all, if your team is fracturing over a funding bill that ignores enhanced health insurance protections, what’s the point of claiming to champion the little guy?
On the flip side, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen defended the vote to reopen the government, noting that Republicans weren’t budging on adding healthcare subsidies no matter how long the shutdown dragged on.
“When I talk to my constituents in New Hampshire, you know what they say to me? They say, ‘Why can’t you all just work together to address the problems that are facing this country?’” Shaheen remarked.
While her plea for bipartisanship sounds noble, one has to wonder if caving to a bill that sidesteps crucial healthcare support is really the “working together” Americans want—or just a surrender to political gridlock.
Former Jets quarterback and commentator Mark Sanchez has been fired by Fox Sports ahead of his criminal trial for assaulting a truck driver.
“We can confirm that Mark Sanchez is no longer with the network. There will be no further comment at this time,” the network told the New York Post.
In October, Sanchez was arrested after a violent altercation outside a hotel in Indianapolis, where he was traveling to cover a Raiders-Colts game.
The 69-year-old victim, Perry Tole, sued Fox Sports for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging the network "knew or should have known” about Sanchez’s “unfitness as an employee, propensity for drinking and/or harmful conduct."
Sanchez, who was allegedly drunk during the late-night incident, was set off by the truck driver blocking an alley where Sanchez was doing sprints.
Tole said he stabbed Sanchez in self-defense after pepper spray failed to stop the crazed sports star, who allegedly threw Tole to the ground and slashed him through the cheek with his own knife - leaving Tole "permanently disfigured."
"This guy is trying to kill me,” Tole told police.
Tole suffered a "severe laceration to the side of his face, penetrating all the way through his left cheek," according to court documents, and the man's attorneys released a grisly photo of him spattered in blood in his hospital bed.
Sanchez, 38, was also seen on surveillance camera with a big blood stain on his shirt.
He was initially charged with misdemeanors, but prosecutors added a felony battery count due to the severity of the victim's injuries.
"This incident should never have happened,” Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears said in a statement. “What began as a disagreement between a 38-year-old former professional athlete and a 69-year-old man should not have escalated into violence or left anyone seriously injured. As with any case, we will follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”
While Sanchez has not commented on his firing, his family issued a statement expressing "disappointment" at the turn of events.
“It’s been a long month for Mark as he continues to recover from serious injuries while also grieving the loss of a close friend,” Mark’s brother, Nick, said in a statement from the Sanchez family.
“While the recent news — and its timing — is understandably disappointing, our priority remains his continued healing and recovery. Mark deeply values his time at Fox and the exceptional colleagues he’s had the privilege to work with. Those relationships are meaningful and will endure.”
President Donald Trump's tariff fight has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the arguments are already flying on both sides as the justices scrutinize whether he had the ability to impose the tariffs under his authority.
According to Fox News, Justice Amy Coney Barrett took the lead on determining whether or not Trump had the authority to impose global tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
She joined other justices, from both sides, in scrutinizing the ability for the president to use the emergency law to impose an aggressive tariff scheme on numerous countries since taking office.
Solicitor General John Sauer, during a nearly three-hour back-and-forth, argued in favor of Trump's ability to use the emergency law to impose the tariffs, pointing to language in the law that he believes allows it.
Justice Barrett pressed Sauer on his arguments, seemingly especially skeptical of the law's language regarding how Trump's lawyers interpreted it.
Fox News noted:
Solicitor General John Sauer repeatedly argued during the lengthy 2½-hour oral arguments that the emergency law Trump used to enact the tariffs for nearly every U.S. trading partner contained language about regulating imports, which Sauer said included using tariffs. The relevant statute permits the president to "regulate … nullify [and] void … importation," but it does not use the word "tariff." Barrett pressed Sauer on this point.
"Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together, ‘regulate importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?" Barrett asked Sauer.
Sauer apparently had a difficult time convincing Barrett.
Fox News added:
Sauer noted one other trade law that had served as a precursor to the emergency law in question, but Barrett appeared unconvinced, repeating her question as Sauer failed to offer direct responses.
As Sauer continued to try to prove his point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal justice, demanded Sauer "just answer the justice's question."
Sotomayor wasn't done there. She challenged Sauer's argument and proclaimed that, contrary to Sauer's argument, tariffs are taxes.
"It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax," Sotomayor said. "And you want to say tariffs are not taxes. But that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens, revenue."
The two continued to go back and forth, offering a glimpse at how tough a fight Sauer and the Trump administration have ahead of them.
It'll be interesting to see how SCOTUS comes down on the issue, that's for sure.
Stephen Moore, a former top adviser to President Donald Trump and a longtime fellow at the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, made a bombshell announcement this week regarding his future at the organization.
According to the New York Post, Moore, in an X post, announced that he would be resigning from the think tank to focus on another project he's working on.
The news comes in the wake of a massive controversy regarding the organization's president Kevin Roberts’ defense of Tucker Carlson platforming white nationalist Nick Fuentes.
Notably, Moore didn't reference the controversy in his exit announcement, but many believe the timing of his resignation is simply too close to what's going on behind the doors at the organization.
There was reportedly "internal revolt" and pressure from donors after the Fuentes situation unfolded, with many calling for Roberts to resign, even though he later apologized for defending Carlson.
Moore stated in his announcement that he was leaving to focus his work on the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
“After 12 happy and productive years, I have decided to resign my position as senior visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation in order to concentrate my work load on continuing to build up @Comm4Prosperity [Committee to Unleash Prosperity] and the mounting influence of our daily Hotline,” he wrote.
Friends:
After 12 happy and productive years, I have decided to resign my position as senior visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation in order to concentrate my work load on continuing to build up @Comm4Prosperity and the mounting influence of our daily Hotline.
As Ed Feulner…
— Stephen Moore (@StephenMoore) November 6, 2025
However, it doesn't take a detective or inside information to presume why Moore is actually quitting the foundation.
The Post noted:
The Committee to Unleash Prosperity co-founder had been asked by donors to that group to leave Heritage, one source familiar with Moore’s exit told The Post.
Moore’s wife, Anne, had also proclaimed in a since-deleted tweet that Roberts didn’t deserve “a second chance” and that her “husband will be submitting his resignation.”
Users across social media reacted to Moore's shocking, but expected, announcement.
"Heritage Foundation leaders are jumping ship. Get out while you still can," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "You were patient and hopeful Stephen. You waited this many days, you gave them time."
It'll be fascinating to see who else leaves the organization in the coming days and weeks.
The U.S. Supreme Court will allow enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order that requires passports to accurately reflect biological sex.
The ruling split the court along ideological lines, with six conservatives siding with Trump as the three liberals joined in an emotional dissent.
On the first day of his second White House term, Trump signed an executive order requiring the State Department to identify passport holders using their true, biological sex.
Trump reversed the previous administration's approach, which allowed passport holders to inaccurately identify as members of the opposite sex or even as "X."
A federal district court blocked Trump's policy from taking effect, with the judge finding it was based on nothing but pure, irrational prejudice. An appeals court declined to overturn that order, spurring Trump to seek the Supreme Court's intervention.
The Trump administration challenged the lower court's block as an affront to "scientific reality" and Trump's authority over foreign affairs.
"U.S. passports are official government documents, addressed to foreign nations. The Executive Order in this case is an exercise of power conferred on the President both by the Constitution and by statute to determine the contents of U.S. passports. Yet the court’s injunction countermands that Order -- and in so doing, interferes with the President’s foreign-policy prerogatives," Solicitor General John D. Sauer wrote.
In a brief, unsigned order, the conservative majority found that Trump's policy does not violate equal protection principles.
"Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth -- in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment," the majority wrote.
The justices also said they saw no evidence that Trump's policy was motivated by an arbitrary desire to inflict harm on a particular social group, as the challengers claimed.
On the other hand, the justices found that Trump faces "irreparable injury" from the lower court interfering with "an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government document."
In an emotional, nearly 12-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted the court's intervention as inappropriate and said it would greenlight "imminent, concrete injury."
"This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent," she wrote.
Justice Jackson infamously declined to define what a woman is during her confirmation hearing.
A handful of Democrats have entered talks on ending the government shutdown, undermining Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as he continues to hold out for concessions from Republicans.
As the costs of the shutdown continue to mount, some Democrats including Senators Maggie Hassan (NH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Gary Peters (D-MI) are working on a deal to end the impasse, the Hill reported.
The shutdown became the longest in U.S. history this week as the impacts continued to spread, with funding lapsed for food stamps and millions of federal workers missing paychecks.
Republicans need at least eight Democrats to cross the aisle in order to break the 60-vote filibuster. For weeks, only three Democrats have voted to end the shutdown consistently, and they are Sens. John Fetterman (D-PA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), and Angus King (ME), an independent who caucuses with the Dems. If Hassan, Peters, and Shaheen join that group, Republicans would still need two more votes.
“There’s a plan, we’ve all kind of semiagreed to it and we’re now seeing not whether [Senate Democratic Leader Chuck] Schumer will support it but whether he will not blow it up,” one senator said.
A source said that at least eight Democrats expressed interest in opening the government at a tense Tuesday meeting where the party's factions clashed over a path forward, but the situation remains fluid.
“To me, it looked like there were eight votes, but it could change. There’s a lot to think about,” the source cautioned. “Nobody can predict the future.”
According to the Hill, the tentative deal would likely include at least some regular, full-year spending bills and a commitment to vote on extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that Democrats have made central to the fight.
But some Democrats think it would be a mistake to back down without more solid concessions, especially a commitment from Republicans to ensure that the subsidies pass. These pro-shutdown Democrats are fearful Schumer is losing control as the caucus starts to split.
“That’s what leadership is all about. Is this just to let us all vent so we can pretend we were hurt? Or are we shaping this into a plan that keeps Democrats united and achieves some objective? That requires a person with the hand on the tiller,” said one Schumer skeptic.
Another factor motivating the shutdown Democrats is that the party won big in Tuesday night's elections, including in Virginia, which has a large number of furloughed federal workers. But not all Democrats are convinced that the results were all that meaningful.
“Last night was a good night but it was one night of the year,” Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona (D) told CNN.
Schumer has not said which way he is leaning, but he said a Thursday lunch with the caucus was "productive."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is holding another vote on Friday to put Democrats to the test.
"I think the clear path forward here with regard to the [Obamacare] issue, open up the government, and we head down to the White House and sit down with the president and talk about it," Thune said. "But I just, right now there is hostage taking, as you all know. The consequences are getting more pronounced."
Right-wing journalist Laura Loomer has gained press credentials at the Pentagon, bringing possible headaches for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and others on President Trump's national security team whom she has targeted, the Daily Mail reported.
Online, Loomer is known for feuding with other right-wing figures whom she considers to be disloyal to Trump and his "America First" agenda, and she has played a role in driving out some Trump foreign policy staffers over ideological disputes.
Recently, Loomer threatened to boycott the 2026 midterms over Secretary Hegseth's move to host a Qatari air force facility at a U.S military base in Idaho.
But she has also expressed support for Hegseth's anti-woke reforms. "He says being a fat soldier is 'unacceptable'. He's correct," shew wrote in September.
Her access at the Pentagon comes even as many legacy media outlets have cleared out of the building in protest of new press restrictions.
The new rules bar reporters from soliciting unauthorized information, in what Hegseth calls a common sense move to protect national security.
With a few exceptions, the rules were rejected by most news organizations, including right-of-center ones like Fox News.
Loomer now joins a group of right-wing journalists who have agreed to the Pentagon's new press restrictions, including LindellTV and The Gateway Pundit.
"I look forward to covering the Pentagon and breaking more stories that impact our country and our national security. I have developed a Rolodex of sources and if you have any tips, feel free to contact the Loomered Tip Line: the most influential Tip Line in all of DC," Loomer wrote in her announcement on X.
Loomer is still not credentialed at the White House, although the administration has shaken up the press corps there as well to include more pro-MAGA voices.
While known for her fierce devotion to Trump, Loomer is equally vocal about criticizing those in his orbit whom she sees as out of step with his agenda.
Among the Pentagon figures Loomer has targeted are Col. Earl G. Matthews, the Pentagon's top lawyer, and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who revoked the appointment of a Biden official to West Point's staff after Loomer criticized the pick.
Loomer has also feuded with MAGA politicians like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA.), who has recently taken a perceived turn against Trump on various issues.
“I know she’s known as a ‘radical right,’ but I think Laura Loomer is a very nice person,” Trump told reporters in August. “… I think she’s a patriot, and she gets excited because of the fact she’s a patriot, and she doesn’t like things going on that she thinks are bad for the country. I like her.”
Barack Obama called New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on the phone this weekend to offer support and be a "sounding board" for Mamdani's political ambitions into the future.
The spiritual leader of the Democratic party told Mamdani that his campaign has been "impressive to watch," New York Times reported.
Obama's quiet support comes even as many Democrats have kept their distance from Mamdani, a self-avowed socialist.
Mamdani's rise has been a political problem for Democrats, who have split on whether to endorse him. Democrats are aware that Republicans plan to tie Mamdani to Democratic candidates in the 2026 midterms, and attacks have already started in Tuesday's off-year elections.
The top Democrat in the Senate, New York's Chuck Schumer, has declined to back Mamdani, and the top Democrat in the House, New York's Hakeem Jeffries, hesitated before finally endorsing Mamdani in late October.
On the other hand, Long Island Democratic congressman Tom Suozzi has forcefully rejected Mamdani and his socialist politics.
While many Democrats have danced around Mamdani's campaign, he is likely to stick around, with polls showing him the clear favorite in a three-way race with ex-governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent, and Republican Curtis Sliwa.
Obama is not endorsing Mamdani, at least not publicly, but the former president appears to see the 34-year-old as a kindred spirit. The Times reports that Obama and Mamdani made plans to meet in Washington D.C., where Obama has continued to reside since leaving the White House.
"Mr. Obama said that he was invested in Mr. Mamdani’s success beyond the election on Tuesday," the New York Times reports.
Obama was in Newark, New Jersey this weekend to campaign for Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic candidate in New Jersey's close race for governor.
Despite being a short drive from New York City, Obama didn't make any time for Mamdani.
While Mamdani is widely expected to win the mayoral election, that is likely not the only reason Obama isn't getting involved.
The former president is certainly aware that his socialist protege's politics are too radical for most of the country outside liberal cities like New York, and so, Obama wants to downplay Mamdani's role on the left, at least for now.
This caginess from Obama is not new. His own rise to political stardom in the 2000s masked a radical agenda that ended up dividing the country, despite his promises to bring America together.
Turning Point USA founder and major conservative influencer was assassinated by a whackjob leftist in early September, and his death shook not only the foundation of this country, but it also sent reverberations across the entire globe.
According to the Daily Mail, the outlet reported that conservative activist Candace Owens recently revealed that Kirk had texted her in 2018 reportedly concerned about the possibility of being assassinated.
Owens said Kirk, who was a close friend of hers, would often speak of a recurring dream in which he would be assassinated. The dreams, understandably, haunted him.
She revealed a number of texts regarding what Kirk would call a "prophecy" regarding his ultimate death by assassination.
The text messages Owens revealed were not only disturbing, given what ultimately happened, but also scary and sad.
"If I tell you the true prophecy I know in my gut it's really sad," Kirk allegedly texted Owens at one point. "But I hope its wrong."
"Anyway I am not sure if I will live to see the end of this revolution," he said in a text. "Since the beginning of TPUSA I knew in my gut that I might get wiped out at any time."
Kirk would reportedly later tell Owens that he was "not really afraid" of his eventual murder, but told her he was "just telling you what I know to be true."
The Daily Mail noted:
Kirk also compared himself to Moses, the prophet who led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and delivered the Ten Commandments.
'I might be Moses tho. I might not see this whole thing through lmao,' he wrote, according to the messages published by Owens.
Owens served as TPUSA's communications director from 2017 to 2019.
The two were tight for some time, but reportedly had a "professional" break up, according to TPUSA advisory board member Eric Bolling.
Bolling explained that while Owens and Kirk remained friends, their professional relationship was stretched because Owens went a little too far into conspiracy land for Kirk's liking.
"Charlie, to his credit, kept a cordial friendship with her for years, but it hasn't been a communication pipeline between the two for many years," Bolling said during a podcast interview earlier this year.
Tyler Robinson, 22, a left-wing college dropout, was charged with Kirk's assassination. He's currently awaiting trial.
It'll be interesting to see what else is revealed as the investigation into Kirk's shocking murder unfolds.