“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

Yeah, it's been dead for oh, almost 50 years.

How 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.

That 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.

In other words, RBG is beating a dead horse.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Yeah, it's been dead for oh, almost 50 years.

Like RBG.

It’s never been adequately explained to me why one sex needed more equality.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
In other words, RBG is beating a dead horse.

I see what you did there.....

Wouldn't the ERA be a step down for women.

If it gets re-introduced, would it also need to include the other 192,293 genders also ?

quote:

Wouldn't the ERA be a step down for women.

So true!

quote:

Originally posted by TomV:
If it gets re-introduced, would it also need to include the other 192,293 genders also ?

Good point!

RGB 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.

^^^

all true

it was inappropriately named - nothing equal about it at all

quote:

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.

quote:

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

One 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

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?

quote:

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