General Discussion

MichMan

(13,796 posts)

54. VP Harris also concurs that it is now the law of the land

Reply to Polybius (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 01:25 PM

13 hrs ago

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19913066

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

ColinC

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle [View all] dalton99a 15 hrs ago OP

Surely now, it can no longer be a crime to treat dying women. Irish_Dem 15 hrs ago #1

Any challenges with be Trump's SCOTUS and Trump's DOJ and he'll own it if the ERA is overturned. TheBlackAdder 3 hrs ago #96

Why did he wait 4 years? MichMan 15 hrs ago #2

He doesn't want to deal with ramifications while he's presidenting. LeftInTX 15 hrs ago #7

So, instead of it being defended by his own DOJ, he left it up to the Trump DOJ. n/t MichMan 15 hrs ago #9

It seems that way. Seems like a Hail Mary move. LeftInTX 15 hrs ago #11

I agree we should never underestimate Joe. I'm sure he thought it through. Walleye 14 hrs ago #32

Agreed. InAbLuEsTaTe 2 hrs ago #101

And when that happens, will you criticize Trump as much as you have Biden? W_HAMILTON 14 hrs ago #31

Damn good question, damn good comments. Thanks. (nt) Paladin 13 hrs ago #49

Yes...that's the EXACT reason Roy Rolling 3 hrs ago #97

Some State? I would put my money on Texas - Paxton has no shame. walkingman 14 hrs ago #28

Of course he will. Another state could beat him too. LeftInTX 14 hrs ago #30

Unfortunately I think there's a lot of things that could be said about EdmondDantes_ 15 hrs ago #13

Thanks "performative" is the word. LeftInTX 15 hrs ago #14

Republicans are the performative clowns 🤡. live love laugh 14 hrs ago #23

I haven't seen anything that would convince me this isn't performative EdmondDantes_ 14 hrs ago #26

AND .... bothsiderism rears its ugly head .... live love laugh 14 hrs ago #27

By that logic here are some other bothsiderisms EdmondDantes_ 13 hrs ago #57

Why didn't he save the fucking world Monday morning QB? live love laugh 12 hrs ago #73

I look at it as a thorn in the side of the new administration Walleye 14 hrs ago #33

Oh, yes. ShazzieB 12 hrs ago #72

No, I think he's pitching a grenade. LisaM 12 hrs ago #64

Ask him. live love laugh 14 hrs ago #22

That's a good question, and there's no good answer msfiddlestix 10 hrs ago #78

What does it matter? Blue_Tires 9 hrs ago #81

So it would have already been in place the last 4 years ? MichMan 9 hrs ago #82

Then Trumpers would have killed it four years ago Blue_Tires 9 hrs ago #85

Because it ForgedCrank 7 hrs ago #87

With that and four dollars, he'll be able to buy a cup of coffee in Wilmington next week. NT mahatmakanejeeves 15 hrs ago #3

Nice... Hugin 15 hrs ago #4

Statement of President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment LetMyPeopleVote 15 hrs ago #5

And that SickOfTheOnePct 13 hrs ago #39

Worse than nothing, I'd bet quite a bit this goes to SCOTUS and torched Amishman 12 hrs ago #65

So liberal bloggers and pundits have been demanding this Blue_Tires 9 hrs ago #84

Thank you President Biden Quiet Em 15 hrs ago #6

What happens if the Archivist doesn't publish it ? MichMan 15 hrs ago #8

Seriously? tritsofme 15 hrs ago #10

This doesn't appear to be an order to publish it DetroitLegalBeagle 15 hrs ago #17

He just directed her to publish it MichMan 15 hrs ago #20

What would Trump do? Fire her and appoint a replacement to publish it. /nt bucolic_frolic 14 hrs ago #21

This message was self-deleted by its author Ursus Arctos 13 hrs ago #41

The National Archives is an independent agency DetroitLegalBeagle 14 hrs ago #25

That's good to know Polybius 13 hrs ago #50

Who the hell put a time limit on passing this anyway? I just don't know. Walleye 14 hrs ago #34

Congress did DetroitLegalBeagle 14 hrs ago #36

Congress, when it was passed 50 years ago MichMan 14 hrs ago #37

I think the Founding Fathers should have set every proposed Amendment to 10-15 years Polybius 13 hrs ago #53

This will be interesting, it's not immediately clear this is anything other than Biden's opinion. tritsofme 15 hrs ago #12

It's not an EO? LeftInTX 15 hrs ago #15

Its not an EO DetroitLegalBeagle 15 hrs ago #16

Another one. Sheesh. It's an Amendment. AllyCat 7 hrs ago #86

Thank you, President Biden. pandr32 15 hrs ago #18

I don't see how it kicks off a legal battle FBaggins 15 hrs ago #19

Apparently the deadline for approval by the states was 1982(!), so this is all for show. TheRickles 14 hrs ago #24

I'm just wondering how this deadline got set? I'll check out the link. Walleye 14 hrs ago #35

Here's more info, from today's Boston Globe (behind a paywall) TheRickles 13 hrs ago #42

Not to mention the states that rescinded their ratifications SickOfTheOnePct 13 hrs ago #43

It's an interesting debate Polybius 13 hrs ago #56

An interesting debate to be sure SickOfTheOnePct 13 hrs ago #60

It might even be 9-0 or close to it Polybius 12 hrs ago #63

I imagine because it's not feasible to go find someone's ballot once it is submitted MichMan 12 hrs ago #66

Early voting is a whole new topic Polybius 12 hrs ago #67

Rescinding is not legal. valleyrogue 3 hrs ago #89

We really don't know SickOfTheOnePct 3 hrs ago #91

It certainly seems to me a deadline for ratification is reasonable. What if the 18th Amendment - prohibiting Midwestern Democrat 1 hr ago #104

The 27th amendment became part of the Constitution 202 years after it was first proposed. Wiz Imp 1 hr ago #105

So if the Democrats win Congress in the midterms, could they retroactively change the deadline I wonder Walleye 13 hrs ago #55

Perhaps SickOfTheOnePct 12 hrs ago #68

You can change a deadline before it happens, but how do you change it after the date? Polybius 12 hrs ago #69

It's from the Associated Press, so maybe it's posted elsewhere without the Globe's paywall. TheRickles 13 hrs ago #44

There is nothing in the Constitution saying there can be a deadline for ratification Wiz Imp 13 hrs ago #48

If the deadline is unconstitutional, then the entire Amendment might be invalid Polybius 10 hrs ago #76

Some Very smart legal scholars disagree and think it should stand. Wiz Imp 10 hrs ago #79

I respect you tremendously, but we disagree on this Polybius 3 hrs ago #88

There are strong legal arguments on the first two points. Wiz Imp 3 hrs ago #90

Serious question SickOfTheOnePct 3 hrs ago #95

No. But it is a valid opinion by the ABA. And this Supreme Court has already shown that they are more than willing Wiz Imp 3 hrs ago #98

Thanks for your response n/t SickOfTheOnePct 3 hrs ago #100

Wrong. valleyrogue 3 hrs ago #94

I'm still curious SickOfTheOnePct 3 hrs ago #99

The "deadline" was always bullshit. valleyrogue 2 hrs ago #103

Thank you, Joe SheltieLover 14 hrs ago #29

The "Christian" Taliban will never let that stand. nt CousinIT 13 hrs ago #38

It's About Damn Time!!! Do it, Joe! calimary 13 hrs ago #40

I am so confused. This is the effing 11th Hour of Biden's administration, not TGIF... Hekate 13 hrs ago #45

It's a short amendment. Link below. mn9driver 13 hrs ago #46

Biden is a great guy, so he's allowed to be wrong sometimes Polybius 13 hrs ago #47

VP Harris also concurs that it is now the law of the land MichMan 13 hrs ago #54

Then she's wrong too, because at this moment, it isn't Polybius 13 hrs ago #59

Thanks, President Biden! 🫶 still-prayin4rain 13 hrs ago #51

It is about time. I hope it survives in court. Martin68 13 hrs ago #52

It's worth a shot HereForTheParty 13 hrs ago #58

Thank you, again, President Joe Biden! You are the best president of my lifetime. LaMouffette 12 hrs ago #61

I believe this is what I am MOST excited to hear about! AllyCat 12 hrs ago #62

What are the legal arguments that could be brought against it? LAS14 12 hrs ago #70

Two legal arguments SickOfTheOnePct 12 hrs ago #71

Huh. Maybe I should have asked what the legal arguments are FOR ratification... nt LAS14 12 hrs ago #74

None n/t Polybius 10 hrs ago #75

The main argument for implementation is that the arguments against are invalid Wiz Imp 1 hr ago #107

Baloney. valleyrogue 3 hrs ago #92

We don't now that rescinding is illegal SickOfTheOnePct 3 hrs ago #93

It was a big story when the 38th state ratified (Virginia in 2020) Wiz Imp 1 hr ago #106

thre was a 7 year deadline for ratification - ending in the early 1980s rampartd 10 hrs ago #77

So Biden is just dumping a legal fuss into Trump's lap to show his misogyny. nt LAS14 9 hrs ago #80

I can't wait to hear the challenges. William769 9 hrs ago #83

this seems huge prodigitalson 2 hrs ago #102