February 13, 2020, 07:55 AM
Pipe SmokerRBG kills ERA?
“WASHINGTON — When Virginia last month became the 38th state to approve the Equal Rights Amendment, the constitutional process launched by Congress in 1972 appeared to finally have what it needed for ratification.
It seemed fitting in 2020 to enshrine in the Constitution the principle of full equality for women on the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.
But the celebration has been chilled by opposition — not only from conservatives and the Trump administration, but also from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a pioneering advocate for women’s equality in the 1970s.
……
The opinion cited comments by Ginsburg that supported the idea that the window for ratifying the 1972 ERA had closed. Noting in September that the ERA “fell three states short of ratification,” she said, “I hope someday it will be put back in the political hopper, starting over again, collecting the necessary number of states to ratify it.”
www.google.com/amp/s/www.latim...epticism%3f_amp=true
Serious about crackers February 13, 2020, 08:06 AM
RHINOWSOYeah, it's been dead for oh, almost 50 years.
February 13, 2020, 08:15 AM
hileHow does that "window closed" argument hold water? Contrast ERA with the recent Congressional Compensation Amendment passed last century that had been proposed originally along with the Bill of Rights.
February 13, 2020, 08:29 AM
RogueJSKThat headline is misleading. She didn't "kill" anything. She just agreed that it's been dead for nearly 40 years.
quote:
Originally posted by hile:
How does that "window closed" argument hold water?
Because the ERA had a 1979 deadline (later extended to 1982) for ratification. That has long passed.
The Congressional Compensation Amendment had no deadline for ratification, and thus was able to be ratified 202 years after it was first proposed.
February 13, 2020, 09:51 AM
trapper189In other words, RBG is beating a dead horse.
February 13, 2020, 09:54 AM
jhe888She acknowledged what is true - the window for approval under the rules is closed. To approve the ERA requires starting again.
She is merely acknowledging reality and the law.
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. February 13, 2020, 09:57 AM
kz1000quote:
Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Yeah, it's been dead for oh, almost 50 years.
Like RBG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yidn, shreibt un fershreibt"
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
-Bomber Harris
February 13, 2020, 09:59 AM
TMatsIt’s never been adequately explained to me why one sex needed more equality.
_______________________________________________________
despite them
February 13, 2020, 10:11 AM
signewtquote:
Originally posted by trapper189:
In other words, RBG is beating a dead horse.
I see what you did there.....
**************~~~~~~~~~~
"I've been on this rock too long to bother with these liars any more."
~SIGforum advisor~
"When the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change, then change will come."~~sigmonkey
February 13, 2020, 10:12 AM
FenrisWouldn't the ERA be a step down for women.
The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People again must learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. ~ Cicero 55 BC
The Dhimocrats love America like ticks love a hound. February 13, 2020, 10:15 AM
TomVIf it gets re-introduced, would it also need to include the other 192,293 genders also ?
February 13, 2020, 10:41 AM
9x18quote:
Wouldn't the ERA be a step down for women.
So true!
February 13, 2020, 10:52 AM
Pipe Smokerquote:
Originally posted by TomV:
If it gets re-introduced, would it also need to include the other 192,293 genders also ?
Good point!
Serious about crackers February 13, 2020, 11:03 AM
sigcrazy7RGB didn't kill it. Too many women realized that they already have extra rights, and didn't want to loose the extra perks, such as preferential treatment in custody, alimony, exemption from the selective service, etc.
Imagine how these feminist women would feel after they realize that this amendment would eliminate women as a preferred "minority" for government contracts? Men would no longer need to set up companies with their wife as the primary in order to do business with the government. Make no mistake, feminist aren't for equal rights, but extra rights, which is the status quo.
Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus February 13, 2020, 11:44 AM
nhtagmember^^^
all true
it was inappropriately named - nothing equal about it at all
[B] Against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC
February 13, 2020, 03:29 PM
jhe888quote:
Originally posted by TMats:
It’s never been adequately explained to me why one sex needed more equality.
No one is advocating more equality. One cannot argue that at the time the ERA came up, women were not treated equally. They still aren't treated even-handedly. Women wanted the guarantees of the 14th Amendment to equal protection to be extended to persons regardless of gender.
(I will set aside the concept that women get some preferences - they may, in areas like certain contracts with the government. I do not believe those should exist.)
That isn't more equality, that is just equality. Explain how it is "more" equality.
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. February 13, 2020, 04:34 PM
flashguyquote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
She acknowledged what is true - the window for approval under the rules is closed. To approve the ERA requires starting again.
She is merely acknowledging reality and the law.
As she should. That is what is expected of a Justice.
flashguy
Texan by choice, not accident of birth February 13, 2020, 04:41 PM
flashguyOne of the issues is "equal pay for equal work", a concept I do support. If a female indeed does do the same work a male does, and does it as well, then she should be paid the same. The problem is that, in many cases a female does not really do the "same work" as a male--their lesser body strength, aversion to risk, and possibility of pregnancy all pose limitations to actual performance. Females also tend to work fewer hours (with reason, I agree) and less overtime--these are factors that employers do take into consideration when pay is set.
flashguy
Texan by choice, not accident of birth February 13, 2020, 05:12 PM
nhtagmemberI am all for equal rights, but NOT when it specifically engenders preferential treatment
women owned business? its just a business - men don't get special treatment or breaks
and I agree on child custody and divorce cases - its the guy that gets fucked twice - once by the ex-wife and once by the courts
But I’m really curious as to which right in the Bill of Rights excluded women?
[B] Against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC
February 13, 2020, 08:03 PM
flashguyquote:
Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I am all for equal rights, but NOT when it specifically engenders preferential treatment
women owned business? its just a business - men don't get special treatment or breaks
and I agree on child custody and divorce cases - its the guy that gets fucked twice - once by the ex-wife and once by the courts
But I’m really curious as to which right in the Bill of Rights excluded women?
That one's easy--voting. But it was fixed later.
flashguy
Texan by choice, not accident of birth