Will the Supreme Court strike down the Equal Rights Amendment?

The Hill ^ | Mar 22, 2022 | Richard Albert

[AndyTheBear]

How does equality under the law mean a private employer must pay me more because there is some way of compiling statics that indicates I am in a demographic subset that earns less money on average than some other demographic subset?

Such equality is impossible to simultaneously have for every demographic category unless all people for all jobs get identical salaries.

[lastchance]

Dear MSN, ERA is dead. Really, truly, legally D.E.A.D. Stop trying to summon it forth.

[Wuli]

“The question for the Court, then, will be whether a state may ratify an amendment and then revoke that ratification before the amendment becomes official. The Constitution is silent on this point, too.”

Thus, the Constitution does not prohibit states from revoking an approval of an amendment before the amendment is able to take force by achieving all the votes an amendment is required to obtain. For it to be unconstitutional the constitution would have to prohibit it, which it doesn’t.

[Political Junkie Too]

The article fails to mention that the DC District Circuit Court already struck down the challenge, ruling that the deadline was valid and passed.

The judge who issued the ruling was none other than Obama appointee Rudy Contreras.

-PJ

[BiteYourSelf]

The era expired decades ago.🙄

[BiteYourSelf]

They’re of the opinion that it’s only “mostly dead”.🙄

[mdmathis6]

The court would have to look at the 1982 extension and note that the ratification did not take place in 1982. Thus they could not accept the amendment as valid unless all the other states are given the right to re-ratify their votes since conditions have changed SINCE 1982.

The congress could vote to extend the 1982 deadline by 2/3rds vote.

The amendment is dead. The congress could try to deem it as having passed but the Supreme court is under no obligation to recognize it as valid. The ERA would have to be sent out to the states again...this time without time limits for ratification.

[Bubba_Leroy]

At least the music then didn't suck as bad as today's auto-tune crap ... :-)

Disco sucks.

[Bubba_Leroy]

The article fails to mention that the DC District Circuit Court already struck down the challenge, ruling that the deadline was valid and passed.

Yep. As I recall, it was appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as moot when the second extension passed and it still had not been ratified.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Even Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg acknowledged that the ERA is dead and if they want it passed they will have to start all over again.

[Bubba_Leroy]

I found the district court opinion. State of Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107, 1154 (D. Idaho 1982), vacated as moot and remanded to dismiss, 459 U.S. 809 (1982). It is a pretty long decision, but the conclusion read:

As part of the mode of ratification, Congress may by a two-thirds vote of both Houses set a reasonable time limit for the states to act in order for the ratification to be effective. When this time is set, it is binding on Congress and the states and it cannot be changed by Congress thereafter.

Accordingly, the Court declares that Idaho's rescission of its ratification of the twenty-seventh amendment effectively nullified its prior ratification and Idaho may not be counted as a ratifying state. The same is true for any other state which has properly certified its action of rescission to the Administrator of the General Services.

The Court further declares that the majority action of Congress in attempting to extend the period for ratification of the twenty-seventh amendment is void and of no effect.

[packrat35]

Compared to Rap “music”, I’ll take Disco anyday.

[Political Junkie Too]

I would think that Congress extending the deadline would be an ex post facto law, because 35 states got their ratifications in on time. Giving the late states another few years to ratify the amendment would not be equal protection for the states that chose not to ratify by the deadline.

Changing the ratification deadline would be nullifying the NO votes for the states that intended to vote no by the deadline.

-PJ