General Discussion

valleyrogue

(1,522 posts)

124. The reporters and some lawyers still continue with myths about ERA and ratification.

Sat Jan 18, 2025, 01:52 PM

Jan 18

There was no "expiration" of the ERA because the USSC decided in 1982 those "advisory" resolutions were not binding in the case of National Organization For Women v. Idaho. This decision is why Congress didn't extend the deadlines further; they were not valid. The three-year advisory resolution extending the ratification deadline ended in 1982. There was no need to put in another "deadline" because the USSC had already decided the matter.

The American Bar Association and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe who ARGUED the court case in front of the USSC, know of what they speak. The media do not.

Lots of lies spewed by the media and the political right, the latter KNOWING they lost the ERA issue in the long term, peddling the nonsense the amendment had "expired" and the whole process had to be done over again. Lots of lies have been spewed about insurance industry-financed, right-wing hack Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum army of "housewives" having "won" the battle. They didn't win shit. They knew it, too, but perception is everything, so many people thought ERA was "dead." LOL!!!!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

135 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle [View all] dalton99a Jan 17 OP

Surely now, it can no longer be a crime to treat dying women. Irish_Dem Jan 17 #1

Any challenges with be Trump's SCOTUS and Trump's DOJ and he'll own it if the ERA is overturned. TheBlackAdder Jan 17 #96

He will own it proudly and convince Americans he saved women. Irish_Dem Jan 18 #114

Why did he wait 4 years? MichMan Jan 17 #2

He doesn't want to deal with ramifications while he's presidenting. LeftInTX Jan 17 #7

So, instead of it being defended by his own DOJ, he left it up to the Trump DOJ. n/t MichMan Jan 17 #9

It seems that way. Seems like a Hail Mary move. LeftInTX Jan 17 #11

I agree we should never underestimate Joe. I'm sure he thought it through. Walleye Jan 17 #32

Agreed. InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 17 #101

And when that happens, will you criticize Trump as much as you have Biden? W_HAMILTON Jan 17 #31

Damn good question, damn good comments. Thanks. (nt) Paladin Jan 17 #49

Yes...that's the EXACT reason Roy Rolling Jan 17 #97

Some State? I would put my money on Texas - Paxton has no shame. walkingman Jan 17 #28

Of course he will. Another state could beat him too. LeftInTX Jan 17 #30

Never underestimate how some women Dem4life1234 Jan 19 #135

Unfortunately I think there's a lot of things that could be said about EdmondDantes_ Jan 17 #13

Thanks "performative" is the word. LeftInTX Jan 17 #14

Republicans are the performative clowns 🤡. live love laugh Jan 17 #23

I haven't seen anything that would convince me this isn't performative EdmondDantes_ Jan 17 #26

AND .... bothsiderism rears its ugly head .... live love laugh Jan 17 #27

By that logic here are some other bothsiderisms EdmondDantes_ Jan 17 #57

Why didn't he save the fucking world Monday morning QB? live love laugh Jan 17 #73

I look at it as a thorn in the side of the new administration Walleye Jan 17 #33

Oh, yes. ShazzieB Jan 17 #72

No, I think he's pitching a grenade. LisaM Jan 17 #64

Ask him. live love laugh Jan 17 #22

That's a good question, and there's no good answer msfiddlestix Jan 17 #78

What does it matter? Blue_Tires Jan 17 #81

So it would have already been in place the last 4 years ? MichMan Jan 17 #82

Then Trumpers would have killed it four years ago Blue_Tires Jan 17 #85

Because it ForgedCrank Jan 17 #87

With that and four dollars, he'll be able to buy a cup of coffee in Wilmington next week. NT mahatmakanejeeves Jan 17 #3

Nice... Hugin Jan 17 #4

Statement of President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment LetMyPeopleVote Jan 17 #5

And that SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #39

Worse than nothing, I'd bet quite a bit this goes to SCOTUS and torched Amishman Jan 17 #65

So liberal bloggers and pundits have been demanding this Blue_Tires Jan 17 #84

Thank you President Biden Quiet Em Jan 17 #6

What happens if the Archivist doesn't publish it ? MichMan Jan 17 #8

Seriously? tritsofme Jan 17 #10

This doesn't appear to be an order to publish it DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 17 #17

He just directed her to publish it MichMan Jan 17 #20

What would Trump do? Fire her and appoint a replacement to publish it. /nt bucolic_frolic Jan 17 #21

This message was self-deleted by its author Ursus Arctos Jan 17 #41

The National Archives is an independent agency DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 17 #25

That's good to know Polybius Jan 17 #50

Who the hell put a time limit on passing this anyway? I just don't know. Walleye Jan 17 #34

Congress did DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 17 #36

Congress, when it was passed 50 years ago MichMan Jan 17 #37

I think the Founding Fathers should have set every proposed Amendment to 10-15 years Polybius Jan 17 #53

Nothing happens. Biden just expressed a personal opinion Kaleva Jan 18 #111

She already won a court case affirming her position Shrek Jan 19 #133

This will be interesting, it's not immediately clear this is anything other than Biden's opinion. tritsofme Jan 17 #12

It's not an EO? LeftInTX Jan 17 #15

Its not an EO DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 17 #16

Another one. Sheesh. It's an Amendment. AllyCat Jan 17 #86

Thank you, President Biden. pandr32 Jan 17 #18

I don't see how it kicks off a legal battle FBaggins Jan 17 #19

Apparently the deadline for approval by the states was 1982(!), so this is all for show. TheRickles Jan 17 #24

I'm just wondering how this deadline got set? I'll check out the link. Walleye Jan 17 #35

Here's more info, from today's Boston Globe (behind a paywall) TheRickles Jan 17 #42

Not to mention the states that rescinded their ratifications SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #43

It's an interesting debate Polybius Jan 17 #56

An interesting debate to be sure SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #60

It might even be 9-0 or close to it Polybius Jan 17 #63

I imagine because it's not feasible to go find someone's ballot once it is submitted MichMan Jan 17 #66

Early voting is a whole new topic Polybius Jan 17 #67

Rescinding is not legal. valleyrogue Jan 17 #89

We really don't know SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #91

It certainly seems to me a deadline for ratification is reasonable. What if the 18th Amendment - prohibiting Midwestern Democrat Jan 18 #104

The 27th amendment became part of the Constitution 202 years after it was first proposed. Wiz Imp Jan 18 #105

IMO, that's a flaw in the Constitution Polybius Jan 18 #109

I agree with SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #115

So if the Democrats win Congress in the midterms, could they retroactively change the deadline I wonder Walleye Jan 17 #55

Perhaps SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #68

You can change a deadline before it happens, but how do you change it after the date? Polybius Jan 17 #69

It's from the Associated Press, so maybe it's posted elsewhere without the Globe's paywall. TheRickles Jan 17 #44

There is nothing in the Constitution saying there can be a deadline for ratification Wiz Imp Jan 17 #48

If the deadline is unconstitutional, then the entire Amendment might be invalid Polybius Jan 17 #76

Some Very smart legal scholars disagree and think it should stand. Wiz Imp Jan 17 #79

I respect you tremendously, but we disagree on this Polybius Jan 17 #88

There are strong legal arguments on the first two points. Wiz Imp Jan 17 #90

Serious question SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #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 Jan 17 #98

Thanks for your response n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #100

Thanks for the detailed reply, and here's mine Polybius Jan 18 #108

Wrong. valleyrogue Jan 17 #94

I'm still curious SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #99

The "deadline" was always bullshit. valleyrogue Jan 17 #103

Your last line, 1000%. (We shouldn't need an ERA. FULL STOP.) RandomNumbers Jan 18 #128

Thank you, Joe SheltieLover Jan 17 #29

The "Christian" Taliban will never let that stand. nt CousinIT Jan 17 #38

It's About Damn Time!!! Do it, Joe! calimary Jan 17 #40

I am so confused. This is the effing 11th Hour of Biden's administration, not TGIF... Hekate Jan 17 #45

It's a short amendment. Link below. mn9driver Jan 17 #46

Biden is a great guy, so he's allowed to be wrong sometimes Polybius Jan 17 #47

VP Harris also concurs that it is now the law of the land MichMan Jan 17 #54

Then she's wrong too, because at this moment, it isn't Polybius Jan 17 #59

Thanks, President Biden! 🫶 still-prayin4rain Jan 17 #51

It is about time. I hope it survives in court. Martin68 Jan 17 #52

It wont Kaleva Jan 18 #112

My understanding is that there is a gray area involved in the ratification process. The required of states required Martin68 Jan 18 #122

And the courts will rule SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #123

Biden's action won't force anything Shrek Jan 18 #130

It's worth a shot HereForTheParty Jan 17 #58

Thank you, again, President Joe Biden! You are the best president of my lifetime. LaMouffette Jan 17 #61

I believe this is what I am MOST excited to hear about! AllyCat Jan 17 #62

What are the legal arguments that could be brought against it? LAS14 Jan 17 #70

Two legal arguments SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #71

Huh. Maybe I should have asked what the legal arguments are FOR ratification... nt LAS14 Jan 17 #74

None n/t Polybius Jan 17 #75

The main argument for implementation is that the arguments against are invalid Wiz Imp Jan 18 #107

Baloney. valleyrogue Jan 17 #92

We don't now that rescinding is illegal SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #93

It was a big story when the 38th state ratified (Virginia in 2020) Wiz Imp Jan 18 #106

thre was a 7 year deadline for ratification - ending in the early 1980s rampartd Jan 17 #77

So Biden is just dumping a legal fuss into Trump's lap to show his misogyny. nt LAS14 Jan 17 #80

I can't wait to hear the challenges. William769 Jan 17 #83

Might not be any challenges as a president has no part in ratification Kaleva Jan 18 #113

I mean the challenges to the ERA becoming law. William769 Jan 18 #116

It won't be SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #117

Thanks for a good explanation. William769 Jan 18 #118

this seems huge prodigitalson Jan 17 #102

A president doesn't have a role in the process of ratification Kaleva Jan 18 #110

This is going to get very interesting. niyad Jan 18 #119

I agree SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #120

Popcorn??? niyad Jan 18 #121

The reporters and some lawyers still continue with myths about ERA and ratification. valleyrogue Jan 18 #124

That doesn't sound like an accurate description of NOW v Idaho. The case was dismissed as moot tritsofme Jan 18 #125

Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #126

Meaningless. Time limit has expired. Callie1979 Jan 18 #127

Prepare SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #129

So your opinion is invalid if you die?? Thats a new one! Callie1979 Jan 19 #132

As a lifelong Democrat, I'm frankly appalled by a lot of the current liberal thought that's emerged in the blogosphere Midwestern Democrat Jan 19 #134

For any who missed it, here's a complete & comprehensible explanation... Hekate Jan 19 #131