Ginsburg: Equal Rights Amendment Supporters Should Start Over

  
Via:  donald-j-trump-fan-1  •  2 months ago  •  11 comments

By:   Washington Times

Ginsburg: Equal Rights Amendment Supporters Should Start Over
Justice Ginsburg said it would be unfair to allow Virginia and the other states to ratify now, but not to accept the revocations. “If you count a late-comer on the plus side how can you disregard a state that says we’ve changed out minds?”

It’s dead.  Time to move on or start over. 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Monday that the current version of the Equal Rights Amendment is dead, undercutting congressional Democrats just days before they plan to pass a bill trying to revive it.

The justice said having a statement of equality such as the ERA is important, but she said the current version has “too much controversy.”

“I would like to see a new beginning,” she said at Georgetown University.

She repeated her comments from last year, when she said backers need to start over, because the amendment Congress proposed to the states for ratification in 1972 is now dead.

When Congress submitted the amendment, it set a seven-year deadline for ratification. By the deadline in 1979, only 35 of the needed 38 states had ratified.

Congress passed a controversial three-year deadline extension, but no new states joined.

In the last few years other states have belatedly voted to ratify. Nevada acted in 2017 and Illinois in 2018. Then Virginia earlier this year, now under Democratic control, voted to ratify, and ERA backers said they’d reached the 38 states needed.

Virginia has sued asking a federal court to order the amendment to be recognized despite the expired deadline.

House Democrats, meanwhile, plan a vote this week to try to cancel the deadline after the fact.

Complicating matters, though, are the five states that revoked their ratifications.

Justice Ginsburg said it would be unfair to allow Virginia and the other states to ratify now, but not to accept the revocations.

“If you count a late-comer on the plus side how can you disregard a state that says we’ve changed out minds?” she said.

© Copyright (c) 2020 News World Communications, Inc


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
1  seeder  Donald J. Trump Fan #1    2 months ago

The justice said having a statement of equality such as the ERA is important, but she said the current version has “too much controversy.”

“I would like to see a new beginning,” she said at Georgetown University.

She repeated her comments from last year, when she said backers need to start over, because the amendment Congress proposed to the states for ratification in 1972 is now dead.

When Congress submitted the amendment, it set a seven-year deadline for ratification. By the deadline in 1979, only 35 of the needed 38 states had ratified.

Congress passed a controversial three-year deadline extension, but no new states joined.  https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/49476/ginsburg-equal-rights-amendment-supporters-should-start-over

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Donald J. Trump Fan #1 @1    2 months ago

Next they'll be telling us she really didn't say it!

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
1.1.1  seeder  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 months ago

The She’s right where she mentioned the 5 states that withdrew their initial approval.  It’s an unfair system where once a state says yes, it is set in stone forever more, but if it says no, proponents can keep coming back forever more until the deadline. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Donald J. Trump Fan #1 @1.1.1    2 months ago
It’s an unfair system

No, John, It's simply a proposed Amendment that was never ratified!

When Congress submitted the amendment, it set a seven-year deadline for ratification. By the deadline in 1979, only 35 of the needed 38 states had ratified.

She is right in that Congress must start over again!  Progressives don't want to do that. If they could they'd like to simply force it on the States!

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
1.1.3  seeder  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    2 months ago

Forcing things on states and local governments by judicial decree is the progressive way.  Abortion and gay marriage are both contemptible things they crammed down our throats over our objections.  Not this vile act. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    2 months ago

Vic and HA,

I thought you said that she was anti-constitutional and a progressive? Yet here she is supporting the constitution. 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
1.1.5  seeder  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    2 months ago

Even broken clocks are right twice a day for a moment.  It’s ok to give her credit for stumbling on to one of those moments. I hope she has a happy and healthy retirement while Trump is our President 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    2 months ago
I thought you said that she was anti-constitutional and a progressive?

Yup, but she's honest about it. Just like when she called the Roe decision for what it was. She is pro-abortion, but she had enough honesty to note that decision was pulled out of thin air!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Donald J. Trump Fan #1 @1.1.5    2 months ago

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 months ago
but she had enough honesty to note that decision was pulled out of thin air!

Not quite Vic. Here is her reservation:

Ginsburg said that she believed it would have been easier for the public to understand why the Constitution protected abortion rights if it the matter had been framed as one of equal protection rather than privacy. And in fact, there was a specific case she had in mind as one that should have driven the national conversation, instead of letting  Roe  carry that weight.......

Here’s how Ginsburg explained her approach — that sex discrimination includes discrimination because of pregnancy — to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Struck lost in the lower courts, and the Supreme Court agreed on Oct. 24, 1972, that the case should be heard — but that never happened, because the Air Force waived Struck’s discharge and allowed her to remain in the service before that date rolled around. (As Ginsburg told law students in a summer program in July 2008, according to the 2016 edited collection of her remarks and writings My Own Words , Solicitor General Erwin Griswold had recommended that course of action for the Air Force because he thought the government could potentially lose the case.) The Roe decision came out three months later.
https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/

So she did think that there were constitutional grounds, but not the way it was achieved. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2    2 months ago
So she did think that there were constitutional grounds, but not the way it was achieved. 

Correct. She also pointed out that the way it was achieved would spawn opposition and was she ever right on that!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




loki12
igknorantzrulz
Kathleen
Sunshine
Ender
Eat The Press Do Not Read It


34 visitors