General Discussion

fishwax

(29,329 posts)

46. I do hope that this withstands the legal challenges, but in this era I can hardly be confident

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 06:49 PM

8 hrs ago

I agree that, ultimately, the legitimacy of the seven-year deadline will wind up going to the Supreme Court, and I would expect that this SCOTUS will decide that the deadline is legitimate and that therefore the ERA has not actually been ratified.

I'd love to be wrong about that, but I'll be quite surprised if I am.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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 10 hrs ago #2

What do you mean by "alternative facts ERA" ? It's the same one as it ever was. Hekate 10 hrs ago #3

March 22, 1979 was the ratification deadline for the ERA. speak easy 10 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 9 hrs ago #23

Trump won't give it a minute's notice Bluetus 9 hrs ago #25

There's nothing for them to "shitcan" tritsofme 9 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 2 hrs ago #68

If course Trump will ignore it. And of course SCOTUS wnylib 7 hrs ago #49

But an important portion of the America Public hears this as sort of bookend to Biden's term... electric_blue68 3 hrs ago #66

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

It's all optics setting a narrative Macrophylla 9 hrs ago #31

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

I completely agree with repetition. Bluetus 6 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 10 hrs ago #4

March 22, 1979 speak easy 10 hrs ago #7

The ABA argues the deadlines make no difference spooky3 10 hrs ago #14

Well then it is settled MichMan 10 hrs ago #15

Truly, the ABA is actually the rulers. Igel 7 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 9 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 6 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 9 hrs ago #24

Do you think there aren't any constitutional law experts who disagree with Tribe? onenote 9 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 8 hrs ago #45

And five of them rescinded n/t MichMan 10 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 10 hrs ago #5

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

SCOTUS has do say on what is in edhopper 10 hrs ago #8

"SCOTUS has do say on what is or not in the Constitution" speak easy 10 hrs ago #9

Is there something in the Constitution edhopper 10 hrs ago #11

Is there something in the Constitution speak easy 10 hrs ago #13

I do realize edhopper 8 hrs ago #40

"SCOTUS decides which amendments ... " speak easy 9 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 9 hrs ago #26

So the executive can declare an amendment to be ratified speak easy 9 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 8 hrs ago #46

I agree SickOfTheOnePct 8 hrs ago #47

Yep JustAnotherGen 6 hrs ago #55

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