General Discussion

LearnedHand

(4,273 posts)

68. You think women's lack of equal standing before the law isn't one of the HUGE issues?

Sat Jan 18, 2025, 12:42 AM

4 hrs ago

It's pretty insulting to say we have bigger things to worry about when women can't get decent healthcare or equal pay, and now they're coming for autonomy in marriage and and voting. Greater than one-half the population is firmly in second-class citizen status with politicians writing laws every day that cut away what's left of women's rights. I'd say the ERA is THE first thing dems should have done, and it should be the framework for every political discussion.

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 12 hrs ago OP

Uh no. boston bean 12 hrs ago #1

No? speak easy 12 hrs ago #2

What do you mean by "alternative facts ERA" ? It's the same one as it ever was. Hekate 12 hrs ago #3

March 22, 1979 was the ratification deadline for the ERA. speak easy 12 hrs ago #6

we had 7 years to ratify it rampartd 8 hrs ago #56

That's the point. They won't have to fight it Bluetus 11 hrs ago #21

Biden is stirring up the conversation on making wnylib 11 hrs ago #23

Trump won't give it a minute's notice Bluetus 11 hrs ago #25

There's nothing for them to "shitcan" tritsofme 10 hrs ago #29

Even more basically, the Archivist has not accepted it Bluetus 9 hrs ago #48

The archivist sabbat hunter 8 hrs ago #54

Actually NARA DOES have an official role Bluetus 8 hrs ago #61

You think women's lack of equal standing before the law isn't one of the HUGE issues? LearnedHand 4 hrs ago #68

Of course Trump will ignore it. And of course SCOTUS wnylib 9 hrs ago #49

But an important portion of the America Public hears this as sort of bookend to Biden's term... electric_blue68 5 hrs ago #66

The facts don't support that Bluetus 4 hrs ago #67

It's all optics setting a narrative Macrophylla 10 hrs ago #31

This is the wrong hill to die on right now. Bluetus 8 hrs ago #52

I completely agree with repetition. Bluetus 8 hrs ago #64

There is nothing in the constitution sabbat hunter 8 hrs ago #53

Very true SickOfTheOnePct 8 hrs ago #58

On what grounds? The required number of states ratified it in 2020. JohnSJ 12 hrs ago #4

March 22, 1979 speak easy 12 hrs ago #7

The ABA argues the deadlines make no difference spooky3 11 hrs ago #14

Well then it is settled MichMan 11 hrs ago #15

Truly, the ABA is actually the rulers. Igel 8 hrs ago #50

"The ABA argues ... speak easy 11 hrs ago #16

There is no role for SCOTUS in the constitutional amendment spooky3 11 hrs ago #17

So the executive can simply declare an amendment ratified, speak easy 11 hrs ago #18

He has no formal role, either. He simply made a statement. spooky3 10 hrs ago #28

... then who has standing? speak easy 10 hrs ago #34

The states ratified the ERA, according to the ABA. spooky3 10 hrs ago #35

A State that has rescinded ratification will petition SCOTUS. speak easy 10 hrs ago #38

I guess we will see. Nt spooky3 10 hrs ago #42

I am not looking forward to it. speak easy 10 hrs ago #44

Consider the TikTok case. Igel 8 hrs ago #51

There is a strong legal argument that rescinding a ratification is unconstitutional itself. Wiz Imp 8 hrs ago #63

So the American Bar Association, a private organisation, hath decreed it. We must bow low before our new rulers Seeking Serenity 8 hrs ago #57

Who claimed that? The point is that, contrary to what has been asserted in this thread, it spooky3 8 hrs ago #62

SCOTUS SickOfTheOnePct 7 hrs ago #65

You mean people like RBG when she said the process needed to start over? MichMan 11 hrs ago #19

There is role SickOfTheOnePct 11 hrs ago #24

Do you think there aren't any constitutional law experts who disagree with Tribe? onenote 10 hrs ago #32

Of course some may disagree, but it's not just Tribe; it's also the ABA. spooky3 10 hrs ago #33

Many constitutional law scholars disagree with the second part of your statement. Wiz Imp 8 hrs ago #60

Dillon v. Gloss Shrek 11 hrs ago #22

Related case Shrek 10 hrs ago #45

And five of them rescinded n/t MichMan 11 hrs ago #12

Right. Importantly those rescissions occurred before the 38th state ratified. onenote 10 hrs ago #36

Apparently that would make a lot of people posting quite happy. I assume they never thought it would become law hlthe2b 12 hrs ago #5

I was a libertarian in the 1970s. speak easy 11 hrs ago #10

SCOTUS has do say on what is in edhopper 12 hrs ago #8

"SCOTUS has do say on what is or not in the Constitution" speak easy 12 hrs ago #9

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

Is there something in the Constitution speak easy 11 hrs ago #13

I do realize edhopper 10 hrs ago #40

"SCOTUS decides which amendments ... " speak easy 11 hrs ago #27

Is there some thing in the Constitution that says the court can declare a law unconstitutional onenote 10 hrs ago #37

They can declare a law unconstitutional edhopper 10 hrs ago #39

They can interpret the provisions of the constitution that describe the amendment process. onenote 10 hrs ago #43

There's been quite a few developments re sex/gender. nolabear 11 hrs ago #20

I don't think they get the chance to do so. elleng 11 hrs ago #26

So the executive can declare an amendment to be ratified speak easy 10 hrs ago #30

Yes, they may do that edhopper 10 hrs ago #41

I do hope that this withstands the legal challenges, but in this era I can hardly be confident fishwax 10 hrs ago #46

I agree SickOfTheOnePct 10 hrs ago #47

Yep JustAnotherGen 8 hrs ago #55

It will have to get to the court first SickOfTheOnePct 8 hrs ago #59