General Discussion

Macrophylla

(201 posts)

31. It's all optics setting a narrative

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 07:04 PM

Jan 2025

What people can be PROGRAMED to think if you just keep saying it is...

The republican appointed supreme court rules against women's rights completely.

We all just saw that Americans in general are clueless to facts but highly susceptible to anything they hear repeatedly.

It's about time we learn that and practice that.
My opinion anyway yours may differ

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

SCOTUS will throw out the ERA in a NY minute. [View all] speak easy Jan 2025 OP

Uh no. boston bean Jan 2025 #1

No? speak easy Jan 2025 #2

What do you mean by "alternative facts ERA" ? It's the same one as it ever was. Hekate Jan 2025 #3

March 22, 1979 was the ratification deadline for the ERA. speak easy Jan 2025 #6

we had 7 years to ratify it rampartd Jan 2025 #56

That's the point. They won't have to fight it Bluetus Jan 2025 #21

Biden is stirring up the conversation on making wnylib Jan 2025 #23

Trump won't give it a minute's notice Bluetus Jan 2025 #25

There's nothing for them to "shitcan" tritsofme Jan 2025 #29

Even more basically, the Archivist has not accepted it Bluetus Jan 2025 #48

The archivist sabbat hunter Jan 2025 #54

Actually NARA DOES have an official role Bluetus Jan 2025 #61

You think women's lack of equal standing before the law isn't one of the HUGE issues? LearnedHand Jan 2025 #68

Health care and fair pay are economic issues Bluetus Jan 2025 #70

Of course Trump will ignore it. And of course SCOTUS wnylib Jan 2025 #49

But an important portion of the America Public hears this as sort of bookend to Biden's term... electric_blue68 Jan 2025 #66

The facts don't support that Bluetus Jan 2025 #67

It's all optics setting a narrative Macrophylla Jan 2025 #31

This is the wrong hill to die on right now. Bluetus Jan 2025 #52

I completely agree with repetition. Bluetus Jan 2025 #64

The condescension from you is un necessary Macrophylla Jan 2025 #69

There is nothing in the constitution sabbat hunter Jan 2025 #53

Very true SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #58

On what grounds? The required number of states ratified it in 2020. JohnSJ Jan 2025 #4

March 22, 1979 speak easy Jan 2025 #7

The ABA argues the deadlines make no difference spooky3 Jan 2025 #14

Well then it is settled MichMan Jan 2025 #15

Truly, the ABA is actually the rulers. Igel Jan 2025 #50

"The ABA argues ... speak easy Jan 2025 #16

There is no role for SCOTUS in the constitutional amendment spooky3 Jan 2025 #17

So the executive can simply declare an amendment ratified, speak easy Jan 2025 #18

He has no formal role, either. He simply made a statement. spooky3 Jan 2025 #28

... then who has standing? speak easy Jan 2025 #34

The states ratified the ERA, according to the ABA. spooky3 Jan 2025 #35

A State that has rescinded ratification will petition SCOTUS. speak easy Jan 2025 #38

I guess we will see. Nt spooky3 Jan 2025 #42

I am not looking forward to it. speak easy Jan 2025 #44

Consider the TikTok case. Igel Jan 2025 #51

There is a strong legal argument that rescinding a ratification is unconstitutional itself. Wiz Imp Jan 2025 #63

So the American Bar Association, a private organisation, hath decreed it. We must bow low before our new rulers Seeking Serenity Jan 2025 #57

Who claimed that? The point is that, contrary to what has been asserted in this thread, it spooky3 Jan 2025 #62

SCOTUS SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #65

Often missing from the conversation is that Tribe has tried to pitch this to SCOTUS previously FBaggins Jan 2025 #71

The American Bar Association is made up of lawyers RandomNumbers Jan 2025 #83

The DOJ lawyers SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #85

"New Rulers" ?? Wow, you seem to have A LOT of antipathy to women RandomNumbers Jan 2025 #84

You mean people like RBG when she said the process needed to start over? MichMan Jan 2025 #19

There is role SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #24

Do you think there aren't any constitutional law experts who disagree with Tribe? onenote Jan 2025 #32

Of course some may disagree, but it's not just Tribe; it's also the ABA. spooky3 Jan 2025 #33

Many constitutional law scholars disagree with the second part of your statement. Wiz Imp Jan 2025 #60

Dillon v. Gloss Shrek Jan 2025 #22

Related case Shrek Jan 2025 #45

And five of them rescinded n/t MichMan Jan 2025 #12

Right. Importantly those rescissions occurred before the 38th state ratified. onenote Jan 2025 #36

Apparently that would make a lot of people posting quite happy. I assume they never thought it would become law hlthe2b Jan 2025 #5

I was a libertarian in the 1970s. speak easy Jan 2025 #10

SCOTUS has do say on what is in edhopper Jan 2025 #8

"SCOTUS has do say on what is or not in the Constitution" speak easy Jan 2025 #9

Is there something in the Constitution edhopper Jan 2025 #11

Is there something in the Constitution speak easy Jan 2025 #13

I do realize edhopper Jan 2025 #40

"SCOTUS decides which amendments ... " speak easy Jan 2025 #27

Is there some thing in the Constitution that says the court can declare a law unconstitutional onenote Jan 2025 #37

They can declare a law unconstitutional edhopper Jan 2025 #39

They can interpret the provisions of the constitution that describe the amendment process. onenote Jan 2025 #43

Sorry - that just doesn't make sense FBaggins Jan 2025 #72

If the country adds a new Amendment edhopper Jan 2025 #78

That isn't the question FBaggins Jan 2025 #79

There's been quite a few developments re sex/gender. nolabear Jan 2025 #20

I don't think they get the chance to do so. elleng Jan 2025 #26

So the executive can declare an amendment to be ratified speak easy Jan 2025 #30

Yes, they may do that edhopper Jan 2025 #41

Only because the case won't make it to them FBaggins Jan 2025 #73

I do hope that this withstands the legal challenges, but in this era I can hardly be confident fishwax Jan 2025 #46

I agree SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #47

There isn't anything to challenge FBaggins Jan 2025 #74

Not yet -- but there will be if any court makes a ruling that accepts the argument that the amendment is in effect fishwax Jan 2025 #81

True enough - but that was actually my point FBaggins Jan 2025 #86

Agree 100% n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #87

Yep JustAnotherGen Jan 2025 #55

It will have to get to the court first SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #59

Those supporting this position have to ask themselves why that didn't happen five years ago FBaggins Jan 2025 #75

It will be a 9-0 decision by the SCOTUS Polybius Jan 2025 #76

It will be hard to tell what the final vote is FBaggins Jan 2025 #80

The problem with the ERA is that the congress put a time limit on it's ratification. Jacson6 Jan 2025 #77

Time limit is a standard practice on amendments madville Jan 2025 #82