I think it definitely is a problem if it goes with people writing off higher education and academic work as unimportant women stuff. 
17 Likes
9 Likes
Sadly, I doubt very seriously if Biden signing the ERA would seal the deal on its ratification. It may be the ABA’s opinion that time limits on Amendments are inconsistent with the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has never held that. So if Biden does sign it, who is going to declare that the ERA is now ratified and part of the Constitution? At best, it would trigger a lawsuit, giving the Supreme Court an opportunity to say if those time limits are consistent with the Constitution, and I think it’s pretty safe to say they would find some justification for them.
Now, we absolutely do need the ERA, and the main reason we need it wasn’t even mentioned in that video. Well, it was kind of mentioned. He said it would ban discrimination against women. Many types of discrimination against women are already banned by various laws (Title IX, e.g.). But it’s not enough to ban discrimination. The key is how such discrimination is evaluated in court. Sometimes, we do allow discrimination. We allow some discrimination based on age (laws which require more frequent testing in order to get a driver’s license renewed after a certain age), and even some discrimination based on race. Affirmative action programs did discriminate based on race. When such laws and programs are challenged, the courts have one of three standards by which they evaluate the discrimination: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis. Rational basis just means that if there is a rational basis for the discrimination, it’s okay. And the burden of proof in those cases is on the plaintiff to prove that the government’s action or law does not have a rational basis. It’s a high bar. On the other end is strict scrutiny. In those cases, the discrimination is presumed unconstitutional and the burden is on the state to prove that the discrimination is narrowly tailored to achieve some compelling state interest. This is also a high bar, but it’s a high bar for the state to prove. Affirmative action programs, at one time, were considered narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Unfortunately, the current SCOTUS decided that that interest no longer exists (racism is gone!), but it’s a good illustration of how strict scrutiny works. Anyway, because laws banning discrimination against women are currently acts of Congress, and not part of the Constitution, these forms of discrimination are decided by intermediate scrutiny. They aren’t afforded the highest bar of strict scrutiny. This makes it easier for the government to permit discrimination on the basis of sex. This doesn’t just affect women’s reproductive rights, but also protections for the LGBTQ community. Banning gender affirming healthcare for trans kids, but not cis kids, right now will be evaluated to the standard of intermediate scrutiny, and SCOTUS may well decide that it’s fine. The ERA would force them to evaluate such laws according to strict scrutiny.
Lastly, the Archivist of the United States and the Department of Justice have both said that the ERA cannot be certified and published without further action by Congress. Unfortunately, I think they’re right.
15 Likes
Damn.
Sign it and make them overrule it anyway.
13 Likes
It pisses me off a little that Democrats in Congress are asking Biden to do this. Congress is who has the easiest path to clear this problem. There is no question that Congress could lift that time limit. Of course, because of the fucking filibuster rule in the Senate, that’s not going to happen because they need 60 votes. They did try a couple of years ago, but they didn’t get anywhere.
All of this is just an example of how our government is broken. It’s not working as intended. I’m just going to hope we make it through the next few years, and maybe progressives can actually gain a foothold and start to get shit fixed. Step one has got to be getting rid of the filibuster.
19 Likes
17 Likes
16 Likes
18 Likes
Yeah, that’s going to fix everything 
22 Likes
Apocryphal comment supposedly made by Golda Meir:
Once in a Cabinet we had to deal with the fact that there had been an outbreak of assaults on women at night. One minister suggested a curfew; women should stay home after dark. I said, 'But it’s the men who are attacking the women. If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay home, not the women.
25 Likes
21 Likes
16 Likes
there is weaponized incompetence and then there is aggressively and repeatedly not learning when your wife’s birthday is so her stupid, boring birthday doesn’t interfere with watching hockey games and playing open mics with your little band of brosefs
one of the replies:
20 Likes
Can we trust anything she says? I mean, we know she’s a liar: she said “my thoughtful husband”, which is a bald-faced lie.
18 Likes
I mean, it could be 1b.
Like he was absorbed in the thought that he doesn’t ever want to celebrate his wife’s birthday, and he continually finds ways of booking conflicts.
I’m going with that one. What a prick.
16 Likes
“Equipment reasons”: euphemism or lazy excuse?
12 Likes
Is there really a band?
12 Likes
15 Likes