Ginsburg: Equal Rights Amendment Supporters Should Start Over
Category: News & Politics
Via: donald-j-trump-fan-1 • 4 years ago • 11 commentsBy: Washington Times
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
Who is online
78 visitors
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.
Next they'll be telling us she really didn't say it!
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.
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!
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.
Vic and HA,
I thought you said that she was anti-constitutional and a progressive? Yet here she is supporting the constitution.
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
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!
Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Not quite Vic. Here is her reservation:
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!