General Discussion

hlthe2b

(107,522 posts)

31. Can you read? I said RBG was not a constiutional scholar litigant. She was not. She was a wonderful SCOTUS justice

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 02:28 PM

Jan 17

but never litigated a case before SCOTUS. Nor had she ever heard a case similar to this to hear the argument much less decided on it. She was making an off-the-cuff assessment about something that was nothing more than a general hypothetical. It was not and had not been litigated. There is a tremendous difference and a reason why SCOTUS justices often are reticent to talk about possible cases in the future.

That you can't see the difference between your similar glee to the RW and my actually stating YOU WERE MAGA--WHICH I MOST CERTAINLY NEVER DID, shows you need to slow down and actually read/comprehend what is written. That you do not is your issue.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

raging moderate

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on the Equal Rights Amendment [View all] Quiet Em Jan 17 OP

The condensed version: About damn time! jls4561 Jan 17 #1

If it's now established as the "law of the land" , when does it go into effect? MichMan Jan 17 #2

Never. progressoid Jan 17 #3

Well, I have more respect for Laurence Tribe than any other constitutional lawyer and he says you are wrong: hlthe2b Jan 17 #10

RBG said it needed to start over MichMan Jan 17 #13

I loved RBG but she is no longer relevant, having not heard the argument that Tribe presents. hlthe2b Jan 17 #14

Just so I'm clear SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #16

She did not live to hear it litigated. She was a tremendous SCOTUS justice, but not a constitutional scholar/litigant hlthe2b Jan 17 #18

We'll just agree to disagree SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #23

that you diminish Laurence Tribe says all I want to hear from you. I said she was not a constitutional scholar litigant. hlthe2b Jan 17 #26

I did read his opinion SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #27

Can you read? I said RBG was not a constiutional scholar litigant. She was not. She was a wonderful SCOTUS justice hlthe2b Jan 17 #31

She argued six cases before the Supreme Court n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #32

Not a single one remotely related to ERA or abortion or anything related. Tribe, on the other hand has argued 36 hlthe2b Jan 17 #38

But that isn't what you said SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #41

Hard to say whether your error here is in not knowing RBG or not knowing the ERA FBaggins Jan 18 #61

Why are you assuming glee? SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #34

Your willingness to devote this much energy into promoting the meme the RW has advanced since VA's vote hlthe2b Jan 17 #45

You said SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #47

Being called on your posts, attitudes and disgusting disregard for the rights of others struck a nerve, did it? hlthe2b Jan 17 #48

Believing SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #49

You said it was settled. I have at no time said it should not be litigated, just as Tribe has made the case. hlthe2b Jan 17 #51

Finally changing your tune... hlthe2b Jan 17 #53

You're a trip SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #55

Your denial is record-setting. I'll give you that. hlthe2b Jan 17 #57

😂😂😂 SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #58

Justice Ginsburg would be celebrating today. Quiet Em Jan 17 #33

Not even close FBaggins Jan 18 #65

Now that President Biden has essentially "published" the Equal Rights Amendment via his announcement yesterday Quiet Em Jan 18 #66

The President didn't SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #68

The last thing anyone should want is for States to be allowed to rescind their ratification of amendments Quiet Em Jan 18 #69

I agree states SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #70

In no sense did he "publish" the ERA - and there will be no forthcoming lawsuits FBaggins Jan 18 #71

not like Larry has had a good track record this past decade thebigidea Jan 17 #43

Tribe and Sullivan conveniently ignore the current makeup of the Supreme Court. progressoid Jan 17 #60

As they should. No where in the Constitution does it say, "...depending on who is sitting on the SCOTUS." Jit423 Jan 18 #95

According to them, it's now Polybius Jan 17 #4

It's in effect right now. Quiet Em Jan 17 #5

A president or VP has no role in the ratification process Kaleva Jan 18 #62

The Equal Rights Amendment has met all the requirements to be included in the Constitution. Quiet Em Jan 18 #67

It isn't up to a president to do so Kaleva Jan 18 #85

When the ERA met all the requirements the con artist was in the office and he chose not to acknowledge it. Quiet Em Jan 18 #88

If it had met all of the requirements SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #90

It has met all the requirements Quiet Em Jan 18 #92

Correct SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #93

There's a specific procedure to follow Kaleva Jan 18 #99

The specific procedure to follow as outlined in the Constitution is Quiet Em Jan 18 #100

Laughable n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #101

Actually the opposite madville Jan 18 #72

According to the Associated Press and Boston Globe, the 1982 deadline for it to be ratified has passed. TheRickles Jan 17 #6

AP writers/editors are not constitutional lawyers. Hell they are hardly reporters. See Laurence Tribe on this hlthe2b Jan 17 #11

I submitted this AP story before Tribe's commentary was released. I'll defer to him. :-) TheRickles Jan 17 #44

how were they able to put a deadline on it? eShirl Jan 17 #22

Every amendment for about the last madville Jan 18 #73

False. Show me the "ratification deadline" in the text of ERA or any other constitutional amendment. valleyrogue Jan 18 #79

SCOTUS precedent SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #81

Here's a link to the official position madville Jan 18 #82

Here you go: madville Jan 18 #94

It was advisory and not binding. valleyrogue Jan 18 #80

If that were true... why would SCOTUS toss out Tribe's case? FBaggins Jan 18 #83

No facts please SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #96

Amendments 18 and 21 beg to differ n/t Shrek Jan 18 #84

ABA and Tribe know what they are talking about. "Time limit" advisory was invalidated per USSC decision in 1982. valleyrogue Jan 18 #89

😂😂😂😂😂 SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #91

This is misinformation. That case was dismissed as moot because the deadline imposed by Congress had already passed tritsofme Jan 18 #97

And yet the poster SickOfTheOnePct Jan 19 #108

There is a strong legal argument that the deadline itself was unconstituional Wiz Imp Jan 17 #25

I agree 100% that there are strong legal arguments SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #30

I said elsewhere that Biden's action should be celebrated even if it doesn't hold Wiz Imp Jan 17 #35

Agree n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #37

Oh, so NOW you agree there is a case to be made and should be settled via litigation. After what, two dozen posts hlthe2b Jan 17 #46

I've said all along that it will be SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #50

Not to me, you haven't. Only a constant stream of memes about it being settled, Tribe has no case to make, etc. etc. hlthe2b Jan 17 #52

I've posted no memes SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #54

Proving once again you never read Tribe's argument given you spiel the meme about the date when there is hlthe2b Jan 17 #56

This case law? Dillon vs Gloss 1921 MichMan Jan 17 #59

The AP is full of shit. valleyrogue Jan 18 #78

Those media outlets are WRONG. DEAD WRONG. valleyrogue Jan 19 #105

You really should read the case n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 19 #107

Please stop spreading misinformation about the 1982 case, repeating known falsehoods doesn't help your argument. tritsofme Jan 19 #112

I love this so much!!! AllyCat Jan 17 #7

me too. Quiet Em Jan 17 #8

Lots of doomsayers here. I choose to celebrate! AllyCat Jan 17 #9

Yes. I keep posting Laurence Tribe's assessment of this (that it is now law) and they keep poo pooing HIM! hlthe2b Jan 17 #12

Unbelievable how many people are upset that the ERA is now the law of the land. Quiet Em Jan 17 #19

I think the misogyny has become embedded... hlthe2b Jan 17 #20

Unbelievable that you equate SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #24

I don't think anyone here is upset, I think we're realistic about what this means EdmondDantes_ Jan 17 #29

I started a thread on this. bdamomma Jan 17 #28

President Biden's announcement will certainly melm00se Jan 17 #15

Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #17

You have not even bothered to read constiutional scholar Laurence Tribe's argument that defeats yours. hlthe2b Jan 17 #21

Why do you continue to assume SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #36

Because they express it and refuse to read a knowledgable assessment that differs from their own uninformed one? hlthe2b Jan 17 #39

As I told you before SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #42

Where in the Constitution does it say a president is involved in ratification Kaleva Jan 18 #64

It's apparent that you're the one who hasn't read Tribe's argument FBaggins Jan 18 #74

Until and if melm00se Jan 18 #103

See Wiz Imp's response, #25. spooky3 Jan 17 #40

Tribe is the one who went before the USSC in 1982 in the case that valleyrogue Jan 19 #109

Untrue - read the case n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 19 #111

Also, the Constitution doesn't give a president a role in the ratification process Kaleva Jan 18 #63

Correct madville Jan 18 #76

Legal challenges from which side though? madville Jan 18 #75

You are WRONG. valleyrogue Jan 19 #106

This is simply false. Stop spreading misinformation. tritsofme Jan 19 #113

Notice what she didn't say: Mike Niendorff Jan 18 #77

What are you even talking about? valleyrogue Jan 19 #104

Read the actual case n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 19 #110

Text of the ERA valleyrogue Jan 18 #86

You probably should read the joint resolution SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #87

You are not being honest SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #98

'It has always been clear that when we lift up women, we lift up children, families, communities, and all of society.' elleng Jan 18 #102