General Discussion

Polybius

(18,727 posts)

88. I respect you tremendously, but we disagree on this

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 10:49 PM

3 hrs ago

I believe doing the "right thing" would be the Supreme Court striking it down, and I believe that it would be 9-0. There are multiple grounds to strike it down:

1) Can states rescind before it's ratified? If not, why?
2) It was passed with a deadline of 1982. How can that deadline be changed after the date?
3) Even if that deadline is declared illegal, remember this: states passed the Amendment with the deadline in mind. Perhaps they wouldn't have passed it if there had been no deadline, at least that's what they could sue for. This argument is very valid.

You would have to go 3 for 3 to win in court. It's not happening imo.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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 2 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