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

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,671 posts)
54. I've posted no memes
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 07:26 PM
Jan 2025

Never used the word settled, never said Tribe didn’t have a case to make, none of the things you’ve said.

My opinion hasn’t changed one bit…

Biden saying it’s ratified doesn’t make it so
Harris saying it’s ratified doesn’t make it so
Gillian’s saying it’s ratified doesn’t make it so
Tribe saying it’s ratified doesn’t make it so

I believe that the date requirement means it hasn’t been ratified, and I believe it will go to the courts and the courts will say it hasn’t been ratified.

Recommendations

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

The condensed version: About damn time! jls4561 Jan 2025 #1
If it's now established as the "law of the land" , when does it go into effect? MichMan Jan 2025 #2
Never. progressoid Jan 2025 #3
Well, I have more respect for Laurence Tribe than any other constitutional lawyer and he says you are wrong: hlthe2b Jan 2025 #10
RBG said it needed to start over MichMan Jan 2025 #13
I loved RBG but she is no longer relevant, having not heard the argument that Tribe presents. hlthe2b Jan 2025 #14
Just so I'm clear SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #16
She did not live to hear it litigated. She was a tremendous SCOTUS justice, but not a constitutional scholar/litigant hlthe2b Jan 2025 #18
We'll just agree to disagree SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #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 2025 #26
I did read his opinion SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #27
Can you read? I said RBG was not a constiutional scholar litigant. She was not. She was a wonderful SCOTUS justice hlthe2b Jan 2025 #31
She argued six cases before the Supreme Court n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #32
Not a single one remotely related to ERA or abortion or anything related. Tribe, on the other hand has argued 36 hlthe2b Jan 2025 #38
But that isn't what you said SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #41
Hard to say whether your error here is in not knowing RBG or not knowing the ERA FBaggins Jan 2025 #61
Why are you assuming glee? SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #34
Your willingness to devote this much energy into promoting the meme the RW has advanced since VA's vote hlthe2b Jan 2025 #45
You said SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #47
Being called on your posts, attitudes and disgusting disregard for the rights of others struck a nerve, did it? hlthe2b Jan 2025 #48
Believing SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #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 2025 #51
Finally changing your tune... hlthe2b Jan 2025 #53
You're a trip SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #55
Your denial is record-setting. I'll give you that. hlthe2b Jan 2025 #57
😂😂😂 SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #58
Justice Ginsburg would be celebrating today. Quiet Em Jan 2025 #33
Not even close FBaggins Jan 2025 #65
Now that President Biden has essentially "published" the Equal Rights Amendment via his announcement yesterday Quiet Em Jan 2025 #66
The President didn't SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #68
The last thing anyone should want is for States to be allowed to rescind their ratification of amendments Quiet Em Jan 2025 #69
I agree states SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #70
In no sense did he "publish" the ERA - and there will be no forthcoming lawsuits FBaggins Jan 2025 #71
not like Larry has had a good track record this past decade thebigidea Jan 2025 #43
Tribe and Sullivan conveniently ignore the current makeup of the Supreme Court. progressoid Jan 2025 #60
As they should. No where in the Constitution does it say, "...depending on who is sitting on the SCOTUS." Jit423 Jan 2025 #95
According to them, it's now Polybius Jan 2025 #4
It's in effect right now. Quiet Em Jan 2025 #5
A president or VP has no role in the ratification process Kaleva Jan 2025 #62
The Equal Rights Amendment has met all the requirements to be included in the Constitution. Quiet Em Jan 2025 #67
It isn't up to a president to do so Kaleva Jan 2025 #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 2025 #88
If it had met all of the requirements SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #90
It has met all the requirements Quiet Em Jan 2025 #92
Correct SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #93
There's a specific procedure to follow Kaleva Jan 2025 #99
The specific procedure to follow as outlined in the Constitution is Quiet Em Jan 2025 #100
Laughable n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #101
Actually the opposite madville Jan 2025 #72
According to the Associated Press and Boston Globe, the 1982 deadline for it to be ratified has passed. TheRickles Jan 2025 #6
AP writers/editors are not constitutional lawyers. Hell they are hardly reporters. See Laurence Tribe on this hlthe2b Jan 2025 #11
I submitted this AP story before Tribe's commentary was released. I'll defer to him. :-) TheRickles Jan 2025 #44
how were they able to put a deadline on it? eShirl Jan 2025 #22
Every amendment for about the last madville Jan 2025 #73
False. Show me the "ratification deadline" in the text of ERA or any other constitutional amendment. valleyrogue Jan 2025 #79
SCOTUS precedent SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #81
Here's a link to the official position madville Jan 2025 #82
Here you go: madville Jan 2025 #94
It was advisory and not binding. valleyrogue Jan 2025 #80
If that were true... why would SCOTUS toss out Tribe's case? FBaggins Jan 2025 #83
No facts please SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #96
Amendments 18 and 21 beg to differ n/t Shrek Jan 2025 #84
ABA and Tribe know what they are talking about. "Time limit" advisory was invalidated per USSC decision in 1982. valleyrogue Jan 2025 #89
😂😂😂😂😂 SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #91
This is misinformation. That case was dismissed as moot because the deadline imposed by Congress had already passed tritsofme Jan 2025 #97
And yet the poster SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #108
There is a strong legal argument that the deadline itself was unconstituional Wiz Imp Jan 2025 #25
I agree 100% that there are strong legal arguments SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #30
I said elsewhere that Biden's action should be celebrated even if it doesn't hold Wiz Imp Jan 2025 #35
Agree n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #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 2025 #46
I've said all along that it will be SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #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 2025 #52
I've posted no memes SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #54
Proving once again you never read Tribe's argument given you spiel the meme about the date when there is hlthe2b Jan 2025 #56
This case law? Dillon vs Gloss 1921 MichMan Jan 2025 #59
The AP is full of shit. valleyrogue Jan 2025 #78
Those media outlets are WRONG. DEAD WRONG. valleyrogue Jan 2025 #105
You really should read the case n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #107
Please stop spreading misinformation about the 1982 case, repeating known falsehoods doesn't help your argument. tritsofme Jan 2025 #112
I love this so much!!! AllyCat Jan 2025 #7
me too. Quiet Em Jan 2025 #8
Lots of doomsayers here. I choose to celebrate! AllyCat Jan 2025 #9
Yes. I keep posting Laurence Tribe's assessment of this (that it is now law) and they keep poo pooing HIM! hlthe2b Jan 2025 #12
Unbelievable how many people are upset that the ERA is now the law of the land. Quiet Em Jan 2025 #19
I think the misogyny has become embedded... hlthe2b Jan 2025 #20
Unbelievable that you equate SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #24
I don't think anyone here is upset, I think we're realistic about what this means EdmondDantes_ Jan 2025 #29
I started a thread on this. bdamomma Jan 2025 #28
President Biden's announcement will certainly melm00se Jan 2025 #15
Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #17
You have not even bothered to read constiutional scholar Laurence Tribe's argument that defeats yours. hlthe2b Jan 2025 #21
Why do you continue to assume SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #36
Because they express it and refuse to read a knowledgable assessment that differs from their own uninformed one? hlthe2b Jan 2025 #39
As I told you before SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #42
Where in the Constitution does it say a president is involved in ratification Kaleva Jan 2025 #64
It's apparent that you're the one who hasn't read Tribe's argument FBaggins Jan 2025 #74
Until and if melm00se Jan 2025 #103
See Wiz Imp's response, #25. spooky3 Jan 2025 #40
Tribe is the one who went before the USSC in 1982 in the case that valleyrogue Jan 2025 #109
Untrue - read the case n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #111
Also, the Constitution doesn't give a president a role in the ratification process Kaleva Jan 2025 #63
Correct madville Jan 2025 #76
Legal challenges from which side though? madville Jan 2025 #75
You are WRONG. valleyrogue Jan 2025 #106
This is simply false. Stop spreading misinformation. tritsofme Jan 2025 #113
Notice what she didn't say: Mike Niendorff Jan 2025 #77
What are you even talking about? valleyrogue Jan 2025 #104
Read the actual case n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #110
Text of the ERA valleyrogue Jan 2025 #86
You probably should read the joint resolution SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #87
You are not being honest SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #98
'It has always been clear that when we lift up women, we lift up children, families, communities, and all of society.' elleng Jan 2025 #102
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Statement from Vice Presi...»Reply #54