Laurence Tribe - The Equal Rights Amendment at Long Last

[Quiet Em]

It is not necessary for the National Archivist to publish the ERA in order for it to be adopted according to the provisions of the Constitution.

In our modern age of broadcast, cable and internet communication, the President’s announcement itself performed that function.

Accordingly, our Constitution now demands that “equality of rights under the law cannot be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.”

It’s long past time!

https://contrarian.substack.com/p/the-equal-rights-amendment-at-long?r=1ndny&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

The Equal Rights Amendment is the law of the land following President Biden's announcement.

It will remain the law of the land until someone (MAGA or misogynisitic men) fight to remove it.

[hlthe2b]

1. Oh, I was waiting to hear from Laurence Tribe. Thank you! Of course the GD MAGATS will take it to court but...

GD, this is so many decades past due.

[Quiet Em]

2. Yes, decades past due.

[FBaggins]

10. They won't take it to court

The statement has no real effect (nor does Tribe’s agreeing with him).

A court can’t rescind a president’s personal opinion - nor does it need to. Presidents have no power to declare amendments

[hlthe2b]

11. You obviously did NOT read Tribe's full assessment.

[FBaggins]

14. I read enough to know that it wasn't going anywhere

You don’t need to go to court to prove that it hasn’t been ratified. Someone who wants to exercise a right they think comes from the amendment is the one who has to go to court.

And “a former president said he thinks it’s part of the constitution” isn’t going to get yhrm very far.

What would a MAGA go to court for? “We want you to overturn a statement” ?

[Wiz Imp]

20. When you can demonstrate you have a resume even 10% as strong as Laurence Tribe's as a constitutional expert

then I may take what you say seriously. Until then, I'll trust Tribe over some anonymous person on an internet board.

[FBaggins]

27. You do know that "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, right?

This isn't a constitutional expert against an anonymous person on an internet board. It's two anonymous people on an internet board disagreeing and one of them pretending that someone else's opinion closes off any argument...

... except that there are any number of experts on the other side - including sources far superior to Tribe (like RBG)

[Wiz Imp]

31. I do know that reading your writings, there is no reason to take anything you say seriously.

Funny. I didn't know RBG had commented on Biden's action from the grave. I would think that would be bigger news with a dead supreme court justice weighing in on something that happened after she died.

[FBaggins]

32. RBG didn't comment on Biden's opinion (not action) from the grave

She was still on the court (and the staunchest defender of sex equality) when VA pretended to ratify the ERA (which is the event Biden is opining about).

[Wiz Imp]

33. SMH

Bye.

[Hekate]

3. Thx for giving us Lawrence Tribe. At long last this morning, a post about ERA that makes sense

There’s an article with a paywall, a statement from both Joe and Kamala, and a sht-ton of wishful-thinking comments here that make me wonder if Dorothy is looking for the Wizard of Oz.

Thank you, Quiet Em.

[Quiet Em]

6. You are very welcome.

[Sogo]

4. My mother, God rest her soul, is smiling down on this!

nt.

[Wicked Blue]

16. Mine too.

[BoRaGard]

5. Excellent. Historic and excellent!

[SheltieLover]

7. I'm sure insecure magats will be rushing to the scotus, screaming and crying, hair on fire

TY for sharing with us!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. I doubt it will be Republicans that take this to court

It will be Democrats now that the archivist says she won't publish it to the Constitution.

And that's good, because the questions need to be settled, both for this amendment and any future ones.

[DeepWinter]

9. Already LGBTQ activists on TicTok and IG

pissed off this is sex "male" female" only and are against it. Ugg. Resistance is from the left.

[rollin74]

12. Wow. That's just silly

[FBaggins]

13. Can't remember the last time Tribe got one right

He seems to only be trotted out when someone on the left has a nutty theory and wants to make it seem credible.

He’s correct that the archivist isn’t a necessary part of the process… but neither is the president.

[MichMan]

19. He has been on the winning side multiple times, but he has also been on the losing side as well

I remember when he said that the SC would uphold the Colorado ban; before it was overturned 9-0

Also he told the President he had the power to extend the eviction moratorium indefinitely. He lost that one too.

[Wiz Imp]

21. Completely different situations

He gives his opinion on the actual constitutionality of things. Of course he's gonna hope the Supreme Court would rule correctly based on his interpretation of the constitution but he can't control when they decide to make up shit themselves (like Presidential immunity). With this statement, he doesn't even mention the Supreme Court, just that Biden's action effectively should make the amendment official. Obviously, because of that, he will think the Supreme Court should agree with him, but I suspect if you asked him if he expects that they will, he would probably expect them to do the wrong thing.

[MichMan]

22. The ruling in the Colorado case was 9-0.

9-0. Hardly a rogue court making up "shit"

Clearly his interpretation was flawed

[Wiz Imp]

29. Not quite what you're making it out to be.

The liberal justices decision was on very narrow grounds. In general they agreed with Tribe's position.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ruling-election/

Worse yet, the court’s conservative majority went even further, dramatically narrowing the utility of the amendment for holding insurrectionists to account. That led Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson to warn that the ruling went so far beyond the specifics of the Colorado case that it could foreclose future efforts to impose accountability on insurrectionists. “The Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed,” Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote. ‘“These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a separate concurrence that essentially agreed with the liberals but suggested they were too urgent in expressing their concerns.

Not exactly unanimity in opinion there when even Barret mostly agrees with the liberals.

Also, you said "I remember when he said that the SC would uphold the Colorado ban; before it was overturned 9-0". He never said that. He said they should uphold it not that they would.

Tribe said "Do I think the Supreme Court will be affected by pure politics or by the threatened violence Trump keeps talking about if he is kept off the ballot? Your guess is as good as mine. But if they want to be faithful to their oath — and this case is ultimately about being faithful to the oath to support the Constitution — they will have to set those things aside."

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/12/no-easy-exit-ramp-for-scotus-on-trump-harvard-scholar-says/

[FBaggins]

24. Which is my very point

He isn't an impartial constitutional expert... he's an advocate who makes the best possible argument for whatever position he' advocating for.

He didn't just lose 9-0... he knew that he would lose 9-0 but made the argument anyway.

As I said - I can't remember the last time he spoke out on an issue like this and ended up being correct.

[Wiz Imp]

30. He didn't lose period. He didn't argue before the court.

He wasn't incorrect. He voiced his opinion . If you say he knew it would be 9-0, then how was he incorrect? And he can't be incorrect about his because he made no prediction about what would happen. He just gave his opinion of what Biden's action means. Apparently you think that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong. Sorry, you have demonstrated no expertise about anything.

[NotHardly]

15. Trust me, Repugs will fight to remove all of women's rights... those we have left that is

[mcar]

17. Long past time, indeed

[paleotn]

18. Removing is just as hard as passing.

That won't happen, if ever, for a long, long, long, long while. Might as well say that ain't happening.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. In Tribe's point of view, can a state start by opposing ratification, which would then prevent it always?

Because he argues that once a state has ratified, it can't withdraw that ratification. Which means that getting to the needed three quarters of states can happen over decades or centuries, but without ever having three quarters in favour at any one moment. Which is a pretty strange state of affairs. If he argues that a state's decision to ratify is irreversible, then he would also have to allow a state to make an irreversible decision to never ratify.

Does he? Has any state declared this?

[Quiet Em]

25. As of January 2020, 38 States, 3/4 fourths, have ratified the ERA

The ERA met all requirements at that time.

What will happen now is a lawsuit will be filed against one of the States with abortion bans and a legal fight to recognize and implement the Equal Rights Amendment will occur. We are prepared for this fight and it is long overdue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. That doesn't answer my question, though.

Is ratification a one-way ratchet, in Tribe's (and your?) opinion? ie can a state vote multiple times to not ratify, but then if it votes once to ratify, that's it for eternity?

[snot]

28. Assuming the current S. Ct. accepted Tribe's line of reasoning

(which is not well-represented by the excerpts included above), wouldn't that put them in an extremely awkward position re- their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health? I worry that this consideration alone will motivate them to find a reason to trash the ERA.