Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hlthe2b

(107,522 posts)
5. Apparently that would make a lot of people posting quite happy. I assume they never thought it would become law
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 04:47 PM
Jan 17

so now it is a source of satisfaction that they be "right" (in the sense of "proven correct--certainly not RIGHT any more than treating any non-white, non-male American as second-class citizens and being content for that to remain the case)

Recommendations

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

Uh no. boston bean Jan 17 #1
No? speak easy Jan 17 #2
What do you mean by "alternative facts ERA" ? It's the same one as it ever was. Hekate Jan 17 #3
March 22, 1979 was the ratification deadline for the ERA. speak easy Jan 17 #6
we had 7 years to ratify it rampartd Jan 17 #56
That's the point. They won't have to fight it Bluetus Jan 17 #21
Biden is stirring up the conversation on making wnylib Jan 17 #23
Trump won't give it a minute's notice Bluetus Jan 17 #25
There's nothing for them to "shitcan" tritsofme Jan 17 #29
Even more basically, the Archivist has not accepted it Bluetus Jan 17 #48
The archivist sabbat hunter Jan 17 #54
Actually NARA DOES have an official role Bluetus Jan 17 #61
You think women's lack of equal standing before the law isn't one of the HUGE issues? LearnedHand Jan 18 #68
Health care and fair pay are economic issues Bluetus Jan 18 #70
Of course Trump will ignore it. And of course SCOTUS wnylib Jan 17 #49
But an important portion of the America Public hears this as sort of bookend to Biden's term... electric_blue68 Jan 17 #66
The facts don't support that Bluetus Jan 18 #67
It's all optics setting a narrative Macrophylla Jan 17 #31
This is the wrong hill to die on right now. Bluetus Jan 17 #52
I completely agree with repetition. Bluetus Jan 17 #64
The condescension from you is un necessary Macrophylla Jan 18 #69
There is nothing in the constitution sabbat hunter Jan 17 #53
Very true SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #58
On what grounds? The required number of states ratified it in 2020. JohnSJ Jan 17 #4
March 22, 1979 speak easy Jan 17 #7
The ABA argues the deadlines make no difference spooky3 Jan 17 #14
Well then it is settled MichMan Jan 17 #15
Truly, the ABA is actually the rulers. Igel Jan 17 #50
"The ABA argues ... speak easy Jan 17 #16
There is no role for SCOTUS in the constitutional amendment spooky3 Jan 17 #17
So the executive can simply declare an amendment ratified, speak easy Jan 17 #18
He has no formal role, either. He simply made a statement. spooky3 Jan 17 #28
... then who has standing? speak easy Jan 17 #34
The states ratified the ERA, according to the ABA. spooky3 Jan 17 #35
A State that has rescinded ratification will petition SCOTUS. speak easy Jan 17 #38
I guess we will see. Nt spooky3 Jan 17 #42
I am not looking forward to it. speak easy Jan 17 #44
Consider the TikTok case. Igel Jan 17 #51
There is a strong legal argument that rescinding a ratification is unconstitutional itself. Wiz Imp Jan 17 #63
So the American Bar Association, a private organisation, hath decreed it. We must bow low before our new rulers Seeking Serenity Jan 17 #57
Who claimed that? The point is that, contrary to what has been asserted in this thread, it spooky3 Jan 17 #62
SCOTUS SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #65
Often missing from the conversation is that Tribe has tried to pitch this to SCOTUS previously FBaggins Jan 18 #71
The American Bar Association is made up of lawyers RandomNumbers Jan 18 #83
The DOJ lawyers SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #85
"New Rulers" ?? Wow, you seem to have A LOT of antipathy to women RandomNumbers Jan 18 #84
You mean people like RBG when she said the process needed to start over? MichMan Jan 17 #19
There is role SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #24
Do you think there aren't any constitutional law experts who disagree with Tribe? onenote Jan 17 #32
Of course some may disagree, but it's not just Tribe; it's also the ABA. spooky3 Jan 17 #33
Many constitutional law scholars disagree with the second part of your statement. Wiz Imp Jan 17 #60
Dillon v. Gloss Shrek Jan 17 #22
Related case Shrek Jan 17 #45
And five of them rescinded n/t MichMan Jan 17 #12
Right. Importantly those rescissions occurred before the 38th state ratified. onenote Jan 17 #36
Apparently that would make a lot of people posting quite happy. I assume they never thought it would become law hlthe2b Jan 17 #5
I was a libertarian in the 1970s. speak easy Jan 17 #10
SCOTUS has do say on what is in edhopper Jan 17 #8
"SCOTUS has do say on what is or not in the Constitution" speak easy Jan 17 #9
Is there something in the Constitution edhopper Jan 17 #11
Is there something in the Constitution speak easy Jan 17 #13
I do realize edhopper Jan 17 #40
"SCOTUS decides which amendments ... " speak easy Jan 17 #27
Is there some thing in the Constitution that says the court can declare a law unconstitutional onenote Jan 17 #37
They can declare a law unconstitutional edhopper Jan 17 #39
They can interpret the provisions of the constitution that describe the amendment process. onenote Jan 17 #43
Sorry - that just doesn't make sense FBaggins Jan 18 #72
If the country adds a new Amendment edhopper Jan 18 #78
That isn't the question FBaggins Jan 18 #79
There's been quite a few developments re sex/gender. nolabear Jan 17 #20
I don't think they get the chance to do so. elleng Jan 17 #26
So the executive can declare an amendment to be ratified speak easy Jan 17 #30
Yes, they may do that edhopper Jan 17 #41
Only because the case won't make it to them FBaggins Jan 18 #73
I do hope that this withstands the legal challenges, but in this era I can hardly be confident fishwax Jan 17 #46
I agree SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #47
There isn't anything to challenge FBaggins Jan 18 #74
Not yet -- but there will be if any court makes a ruling that accepts the argument that the amendment is in effect fishwax Jan 18 #81
True enough - but that was actually my point FBaggins Jan 18 #86
Agree 100% n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #87
Yep JustAnotherGen Jan 17 #55
It will have to get to the court first SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #59
Those supporting this position have to ask themselves why that didn't happen five years ago FBaggins Jan 18 #75
It will be a 9-0 decision by the SCOTUS Polybius Jan 18 #76
It will be hard to tell what the final vote is FBaggins Jan 18 #80
The problem with the ERA is that the congress put a time limit on it's ratification. Jacson6 Jan 18 #77
Time limit is a standard practice on amendments madville Jan 18 #82
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»SCOTUS will throw out the...»Reply #5