ERA, 28th Amendment Possibly Ratified, now part of constitution

[Frodo]

No previous constitutional amendment allowed states to rescind their ratifications, so why should an exception be made for the Equal Rights Amendment? 

[Frodo]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is advising Equal Rights Amendment supporters to start over from scratch:

Ginsburg: Equal Rights Amendment backers should start over

In which case, there should be no arbitrary deadlines this time around.  

[Frodo]

The fight isn't over yet:

Democratic AGs, including Virginia’s Mark Herring, continue fight seeking recognition of ERA

If this were brought before the Supreme Court (now that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been replaced by Amy Coney Barrett), how does everyone expect them to rule?  Will it be an overwhelming rejection of their case, thereby forcing Equal Rights Amendment proponents to start over?  

[Frodo]

Given Equal Rights Amendment advocates have to start over from scratch, then whatever replaces it should be quite different and more expansive, as the LGBTQ community will be demanding that they too be included in it (and rightfully so) -and not just women.  So instead of the current wording:

"ARTICLE —

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

Section 1 could instead be worded like this (best to keep it simple):

ARTICLE -

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, gender, or sexual orientation."

The other two sections would remain unchanged.  And this time, no arbitrary deadlines. 

[Frodo]

Has there been any word on when the Supreme Court will rule on whether Virginia's ratification of the ERA will be allowed to stand?  

[Frodo]

Appeals court debates whether Equal Rights Amendment is really dead

A panel of federal judges expressed skepticism Wednesday about two states’ effort to enshrine gender equality in the U.S. Constitution by getting the federal government to recognize the Equal Rights Amendment decades after it was considered dead.

At a hearing Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Illinois and Nevada sparred with the Justice Department over whether their ratification of the proposed constitutional amendment, long after a congressionally set deadline to do so had passed, should count for something.

The states are arguing that the deadline Congress set for ratification nearly three decades ago is an unconstitutional encroachment on state power. A lawyer for the Justice Department countered that, while the Biden administration agrees with the principles of the Equal Rights Amendment, the executive branch can’t unilaterally decide whether it is part of the Constitution.

The three-judge panel on the appeals court appeared open to the idea that states had the legal right to sue to force the U.S. archivist to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment. But they seemed less sure that their position was the right one, and that the amendment — which was proposed by Congress but needed ratification from three-quarters of the states — has become part of the U.S. Constitution.