Posted on 02/10/2020 5:26:39 PM PST by yesthatjallen
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Monday the U.S. still needs an Equal Rights Amendment, days before the House is set to decide whether to remove the deadline to ratify the amendment.
Ginsburg spoke at a Georgetown Law School event Monday almost 100 years after women voted in their first presidential election. The justice mentioned how the National Women’s Party viewed the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote as “the beginning” after courts interpreted the amendment to only apply to voting rights.
“Their idea was the 19th Amendment was the beginning, but women should have equality in all fields of human endeavor, so we needed an Equal Rights Amendment,” she said. “And I think, at least in my view, we still do.”
She said the U.S. would be “more perfect” if “our fundamental instrument of government” included a statement designating men and women of equal citizenship statures.
“My notion was I would like to show my granddaughters that the equal citizenship stature of men and women is a fundamental human right,” she said. “It should be right up there with free speech freedom of religion and discrimination based on race, national origin.”
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Special Right to Gays!
This wasn’t the case back in the 70’s but this is all its about now.
It is common for 86 year old’s to have dementia.
Straighten out the mess they created first.
The House and leftists are grandstanding, there’s no way they can retroactively remove the time limit on the law passed for the states to vote on the ERA. This whole deal is banana Republic kind of shit.
“My notion was I would like to show my granddaughters that the equal citizenship stature of men and women is a fundamental human right,” she said. “It should be right up there with free speech freedom of religion and discrimination based on race, national ori
———-
This ignorant women should not be a Supreme Court justice. The state does not give us our rights madame, it ensures them.
Then the Congress should pass it again, by two thirds majority in both houses and resubmit it to the states for ratification.
We need Ginsburg gone to make America more perfect.
“More perfect”?
We already do. That these selfish bitches want is greater rights than anyone else.
She means VIP Rights.
Equal Rights is a canard having no basis in reality. It is a subjective, divisive tool that will inflict vast suffering by the wicked hand of Leftism.
The 18th (Prohibition) Amendment was the first amendment to have a seven-year ratification window attached to both the amendment itself and the joint resolution of Congress passing it to the states for ratification by state legislatures. This was challenged in federal court in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, which reached the Supreme Court in 1921. The Court declared that Congress has wide latitude in regulating the amendatory process providing that such regulation does not contravene the explicit language of Article V of the Constitution. Since then Congress has attached seven-year ratification windows to every amendment proposal it has passed to the states for ratification.
The ERA was sent to the states for ratification in March 1972 with a seven-year ratification window in the amendment’s language and joint resolution. By 1979 not enough states had ratified to meet the three fourths bar, and several states had rescinded their ratifications, an act known as retrocession, or rescission as the shortened legal term. Congress reset the ratification window to March 1982, but there was a problem.
Congress used the legislative process, not the amendatory process, to do this. The legislative process requires only a simple majority in the House and Senate and a presidential signature. The amendatory process requires a two thirds vote in the House and Senate; the president is not a participant. President Carter had misgivings about the constitutionality of what Congress had done, but he signed it anyway and decided to let the courts hash it out.
The National Organization of Women took issue with Idaho’s rescission and took it to federal court in the case of NOW v. Idaho. The federal district court issued a dual ruling:
This decision was appealed to the federal circuit court, which declined to hear the case. The Supreme Court received the case after the March 1982 window had closed, declared the case to be moot and refused to grant cert, i.e. to hear the case.
The only way to revive the ERA would be to start the process all over again and get two thirds of both Houses of Congress to send it to the states for ratification. The recent ratifications of three states are null and void, and thus they are no more than virtue signaling.
The Justice Department issued a ruling stating that the ratification window closed in March 1982 – which was an error. It actually closed in March 1979 as decreed by the federal court in Idaho. The department ordered the Archivist of the United States not to count the three recent ratifications.
The first attempt to get around this was to file a suit in federal court ripping the ratification window from the ERA and opening it up for further ratifications. It was understood that such a suit would fail. Federal courts do not like to tamper with settled law, especially something like the Dillon decision that affects process. Only the Supreme Court itself could change Dillon, and that would throw the entire amendatory process into chaos. While the Left enjoys chaos, the courts do not.
Let’s analyze this.
Bottom line: The ERA is dead, and nothing Congress or the courts can do will bring it back. Only by starting all over again can a new ERA be submitted by Congress to the states for ratification.
Her granddaughters must be in their 50s by now.
Ginsburg should recuse herself when this issue reaches the Supreme Court, but I know she won’t. The Senate will never agree to this. Hopefully, Chief Justice Roberts’s vote will not be needed by the time one of the ERA cases reaches SCOTUS.
They can with the help of one of their agenda-driven, leftist black-robed stooges.
What they’ll do is judge shop until they find their hand-selected district judge who will agree with them. They will then demand that the federal records show this amendment as being active, before the appeals can slowly work their way to the next level of appellate courts. “Possession” is a powerful defense; we’d be UNDOING an “enacted” amendment with another court decision. This will sway wishy-washy judges in appellate courts and don’t be surprised if they agree with them.
Any final appeal to the SCOTUS might take years, and by then the leftists might have their installed judges in place.
This is how they did it with marriage redefinition.
I though they were supposed to wait until after you die before they freeze you brain and put it into that cyrostatis or whatever it is.
An equal rights amendment now would need to TAKE AWAY preferences that are currently given to women over men.
This is like the minimum wage law.
It presents a false premise, and then its supporters uses ad-hominem arguments to shout down the opposition.
Their only hope is to pack the Supreme Court with 6 new leftist justices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.