Too bad for these libtarded twits the Supreme Court (including Ruth Ginsburg) handed down a decision that this old liberal identity politics stunt is null and void.
But they can always try to start a new ERA from Square-1 if they like.
Posted on 02/13/2020 8:39:06 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Yep. It’s their “look over there” ploy. Nothing more.
It’s also about creating a stealth way to force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand. This ERA revival push is bankrolled by a number of pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, after the New Mexico state supreme court ruled that the state version they passed requires the state government to provide abortion coverage.
Too bad for these libtarded twits the Supreme Court (including Ruth Ginsburg) handed down a decision that this old liberal identity politics stunt is null and void.
But they can always try to start a new ERA from Square-1 if they like.
Selective service and military roles are one area.
What they really want it for is to prevent a rollback of the women’s rights movement, and to continue to tear down the walls that separate the genders in social and legal matters. Basically they want a guarantee that the laws cannot be written on the basis of gender.
How can they retroactively change it? Once it died, under the original legislation passed by a 2/3 majority of BOTH Houses, then to revive the ERA (or any other proposed Constitutional Amendment), you have to pass the whole thing again by a 2/3 majority in BOTH Houses. Otherwise, they might as well be legislating about animal rights issues on a planet in another galaxy for all that this action means.
“The House vote ran into political headwinds this week as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — a feminist icon — said that fellow ERA supporters should start over in trying to get it passed, rather than counting on breathing life into the failed attempt from the 1970s.
“I would like to see a new beginning,” Ginsburg said Monday night at Georgetown University law school in Washington. “I’d like it to start over.””
“Or on stupidity.”
Also, I heard a great variation on the old saying that, “You can’t fix stupid.” Of course we all know that statement is true. However, one guy said, “But you can stun it for a while with a 2 x 4.” Seems worth a try. LOL!
“Most of the new versions proposed actually switches out sex for gender. They like gender better because it’s a broader term.”
Oh, and won’t THAT be a beautiful fight, because it’d read out the transformers from protection under the new ERA (well, not those who are really female - but the other freaks).
The Amendment that passed Congress had a ratification deadline.
Let them pass another one.
“The House approved the resolution, 232-183”
“A constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional. If they pass the ERA it becomes the constitution.”
Come on women of America they’re pandering to you because They think you’re so stupid and gullible
If “equality” has no time limit why didn’t they do this back in the Clinton years or the Obama years when the Rats had it all?
Besides the supreme court has made it well known that the 14th amendment equal protection clause Covers gender issues
Just more BS from a do nothing Congress
The amendment bill expired four decades ago. They can't retroactively extend it.
Five states rescinded their ratification, four before it expired and one shortly after.
Just because more states ratified it since its expiration, how do we know that other states chose not to pursue rescinding their ratification because it was moot due to its expiration?
An ex post facto extension of the expiration just to deem it ratified denies the states who thought the bill had expired their right to rescind their ratifications.
-PJ
>> This is about LGBT rights.
It’s about repression.
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 it to federal court in the case of NOW v. Idaho. The federal district court stated that Congress used the wrong process to extend the ratification window by three years; therefore, the ratification window closed in March 1979, and no other ratifications past that date could be considered.
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 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 joint resolution 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 Dillon v. Gloss that affects process. Only the Supreme Court itself could change its 1921 decision in 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. Justice Ginsburg is correct, and she is warning the crazies on the Left not to waste their political capital on this futile exercise.
So true but the state of education is such that an entire generation is totally unaware of the basics of our republic. When I explain how the government is meant to work and share powers I get a glazed look.
The concept of local, state and federal control is totally alien to them as they think Washington DC is IT!
Forget about the electoral collage . . . come the election they will once again cry that it is so unfair.
Not bad people just ill informed.
I think Republicans better have a good argument for not supporting this.
The ERA was defeated last time because a number of women opposed it and that caused everyone to pause. The fact is that is far less likely to happen today. Most young women today are liberal. And the youth have been hit repeatedly in school with feminist ideology. So there won’t be a Phyllis Shafely this time around.
If it looks like this is only opposed by Republican men, that’s going to look bad.
This is why we need to flip the house...and I think it will be done, bigly!
what does everyone on this thread plan to do to correct the situation besides complain, discuss, and wait until election day hoping we regain the house, retain the senate, and retain trump?...
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.
