This writer wondered what sort of damage Joe Biden would do as he walked out the door of the White House, and today she got her answer.
Biden tried to unilaterally amend the Constitution by declaring the Equal Rights Amendment is the 'law of the land' (a sentiment echoed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and VP Kamala Harris).
This writer asserts they're doing so hoping a Leftist group files suit against some red state's abortion laws and that some court will buy the argument. The chaos, after all, is the point.
Twitchy fave Jarvis has some thoughts on what'll happen with this latest unconstitutional power grab from the party of norms and democracy:
Alright we've been "havin' some laughs" as the kids say but now let me take off my clown nose and put on my PROGNOSTICATIN HAT to see how this plays out.
— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) January 17, 2025
Senator KG has pushing the Equal Rights Amendment for a long time and outlines here the point of all this - she wants… https://t.co/R97IOqUuIt
The entire post reads:
Senator KG has pushing the Equal Rights Amendment for a long time and outlines here the point of all this - she wants litigants in states that have passed abortion laws to cite the ERA in challenges to the state abortion law, arguing that the abortion restrictions are invalid because they discriminate on the basis of sex.
Here is how I am guessing such a challenge plays out.
Which is what this writer said.
This is a backdoor way to undermine SCOTUS and Dobbs.
FIRSTLY, I am starting with the assumption that there is not a single federal judge in the United States that believes the ERA is part of the constitution. Not one. But let's say I'm wrong and it's maybe 10% of federal judges - not great odds to start with.
— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) January 17, 2025
Not great odds.
But this writer wonders if they don't have a challenger and a judge already picked out.
SECONDIVELY, even if the ERA was part of the constitution, it doesn't mention abortion - all it does is say equal rights can't be denied based on sex classifications.
— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) January 17, 2025
Now as it turns out, the constitution ALREADY HAS an equal protection amendment, so we already have a lot of…
The post continues:
Now as it turns out, the constitution ALREADY HAS an equal protection amendment, so we already have a lot of case law that evaluates challenges to laws based on sex classifications.
Okay.
Which leads us to . . . Dobbs!
— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) January 17, 2025
Dobbs JUST looked at this question and held 6-3 that abortion restrictions are NOT sex-based classifications.
Meaning what? Meaning you can ban sex-based classifications all day and it won't trigger heightened scrutiny of abortion laws under… pic.twitter.com/qwKfscsIr8
He continues:
Meaning what? Meaning you can ban sex-based classifications all day and it won't trigger heightened scrutiny of abortion laws under the (existing) equal protection clause or the (not-existing at all) ERA.
Whoops.
SO. A litigant in Texas or whatever runs off to Court tomorrow with Biden's Tweet and the Contrarian article from Prof. Tribe in hand and says that Texas's abortion ban is now unconstitutional under the ERA. What will the judge rule?
— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) January 17, 2025
The judge will rule as follows, in my…
The post continues:
The judge will rule as follows, in my opinion:
Most likely outcome: "I don't care whether the ERA is part of the constitution because even if it was, the abortion restriction is constitutional."
Second most likely outcome: "The ERA is not part of constitution, therefore your claim is invalid."
Those are the only two options. Again, to be clear, this is the outcome in front of any federal judge in the country no matter how deranged.
Here's hoping. But there's always the chance that one judge doesn't do either of those things.
A lot of people commenting that the SCOTUS is going to rule on this.
— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) January 17, 2025
It's possible, but I doubt it. SCOTUS reviews close calls, and this isn't one. I'd wager less than 25% chance the SCOTUS considers this issue in the next five years.
We'll see.
We hope this is what happens.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member