Kim Davis is done. The former Rowan County clerk’s longshot attempt to get the justices to revisit 2015’s marriage equality ruling was rejected on Monday.

The whole experience provided a good example of why paying attention to people who regularly cover courts and, specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court — and to procedure — matters to having a full understanding of what’s happening.

Although Davis’s request that the court overturn Obergefell v. Hodges was front and center among the influencer crowd and nonlegal publications, it was not the focus of those of us who actually cover the court.

That is so for three key reasons.

Procedurally, there was a serious question about whether Davis had forfeited the argument in the case below — a point noted by Judge Helene White in her opinion for the court at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:

Second, and also procedurally, this was an awkward vehicle to address the issue. This was not a marriage case or even a case over a marriage license. It was, instead, a follow-up case. It was a lawsuit brought by one of the same-sex couples who alleged that Davis had violated their constitutional right to marry by refusing to issue them marriage licenses. And Davis’s primary arguments in response to the lawsuit were First Amendment-based — not about Obergefell.

Those two reasons are likely why no one even wrote on Monday. This was not a good case.

Third, there was no reason to believe that the full court — aside from Justice Clarence Thomas and likely Justice Sam Alito — has any interest in doing what Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver was seeking: For the Supreme Court to address “[w]hether Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and the legal fiction of substantive due process, should be overturned.“

Staver didn’t just ask for Obergefell to be overturned. He asked the court to go much, much further.