General Discussion

TheRickles

(2,555 posts)

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

Reply to hlthe2b (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 03:42 PM

Jan 17

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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