General Discussion

JustAnotherGen

(33,989 posts)

55. Yep

Reply to speak easy (Original post)

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 08:16 PM

6 hrs ago

But Biden is making them do it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

SickOfTheOnePct

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

SCOTUS will throw out the ERA in a NY minute. [View all] speak easy 10 hrs ago OP

Uh no. boston bean 10 hrs ago #1

No? speak easy 9 hrs ago #2

What do you mean by "alternative facts ERA" ? It's the same one as it ever was. Hekate 9 hrs ago #3

March 22, 1979 was the ratification deadline for the ERA. speak easy 9 hrs ago #6

we had 7 years to ratify it rampartd 6 hrs ago #56

That's the point. They won't have to fight it Bluetus 9 hrs ago #21

Biden is stirring up the conversation on making wnylib 8 hrs ago #23

Trump won't give it a minute's notice Bluetus 8 hrs ago #25

There's nothing for them to "shitcan" tritsofme 8 hrs ago #29

Even more basically, the Archivist has not accepted it Bluetus 7 hrs ago #48

The archivist sabbat hunter 6 hrs ago #54

Actually NARA DOES have an official role Bluetus 6 hrs ago #61

You think women's lack of equal standing before the law isn't one of the HUGE issues? LearnedHand 1 hr ago #68

If course Trump will ignore it. And of course SCOTUS wnylib 6 hrs ago #49

But an important portion of the America Public hears this as sort of bookend to Biden's term... electric_blue68 2 hrs ago #66

The facts don't support that Bluetus 2 hrs ago #67

It's all optics setting a narrative Macrophylla 8 hrs ago #31

This is the wrong hill to die on right now. Bluetus 6 hrs ago #52

I completely agree with repetition. Bluetus 5 hrs ago #64

There is nothing in the constitution sabbat hunter 6 hrs ago #53

Very true SickOfTheOnePct 6 hrs ago #58

On what grounds? The required number of states ratified it in 2020. JohnSJ 9 hrs ago #4

March 22, 1979 speak easy 9 hrs ago #7

The ABA argues the deadlines make no difference spooky3 9 hrs ago #14

Well then it is settled MichMan 9 hrs ago #15

Truly, the ABA is actually the rulers. Igel 6 hrs ago #50

"The ABA argues ... speak easy 9 hrs ago #16

There is no role for SCOTUS in the constitutional amendment spooky3 9 hrs ago #17

So the executive can simply declare an amendment ratified, speak easy 9 hrs ago #18

He has no formal role, either. He simply made a statement. spooky3 8 hrs ago #28

... then who has standing? speak easy 8 hrs ago #34

The states ratified the ERA, according to the ABA. spooky3 8 hrs ago #35

A State that has rescinded ratification will petition SCOTUS. speak easy 8 hrs ago #38

I guess we will see. Nt spooky3 8 hrs ago #42

I am not looking forward to it. speak easy 8 hrs ago #44

Consider the TikTok case. Igel 6 hrs ago #51

There is a strong legal argument that rescinding a ratification is unconstitutional itself. Wiz Imp 5 hrs ago #63

So the American Bar Association, a private organisation, hath decreed it. We must bow low before our new rulers Seeking Serenity 6 hrs ago #57

Who claimed that? The point is that, contrary to what has been asserted in this thread, it spooky3 6 hrs ago #62

SCOTUS SickOfTheOnePct 5 hrs ago #65

You mean people like RBG when she said the process needed to start over? MichMan 9 hrs ago #19

There is role SickOfTheOnePct 8 hrs ago #24

Do you think there aren't any constitutional law experts who disagree with Tribe? onenote 8 hrs ago #32

Of course some may disagree, but it's not just Tribe; it's also the ABA. spooky3 8 hrs ago #33

Many constitutional law scholars disagree with the second part of your statement. Wiz Imp 6 hrs ago #60

Dillon v. Gloss Shrek 9 hrs ago #22

Related case Shrek 7 hrs ago #45

And five of them rescinded n/t MichMan 9 hrs ago #12

Right. Importantly those rescissions occurred before the 38th state ratified. onenote 8 hrs ago #36

Apparently that would make a lot of people posting quite happy. I assume they never thought it would become law hlthe2b 9 hrs ago #5

I was a libertarian in the 1970s. speak easy 9 hrs ago #10

SCOTUS has do say on what is in edhopper 9 hrs ago #8

"SCOTUS has do say on what is or not in the Constitution" speak easy 9 hrs ago #9

Is there something in the Constitution edhopper 9 hrs ago #11

Is there something in the Constitution speak easy 9 hrs ago #13

I do realize edhopper 8 hrs ago #40

"SCOTUS decides which amendments ... " speak easy 8 hrs ago #27

Is there some thing in the Constitution that says the court can declare a law unconstitutional onenote 8 hrs ago #37

They can declare a law unconstitutional edhopper 8 hrs ago #39

They can interpret the provisions of the constitution that describe the amendment process. onenote 8 hrs ago #43

There's been quite a few developments re sex/gender. nolabear 9 hrs ago #20

I don't think they get the chance to do so. elleng 8 hrs ago #26

So the executive can declare an amendment to be ratified speak easy 8 hrs ago #30

Yes, they may do that edhopper 8 hrs ago #41

I do hope that this withstands the legal challenges, but in this era I can hardly be confident fishwax 7 hrs ago #46

I agree SickOfTheOnePct 7 hrs ago #47

Yep JustAnotherGen 6 hrs ago #55

It will have to get to the court first SickOfTheOnePct 6 hrs ago #59