Ruth Bader Ginsburg says deadline to ratify Equal Rights Amendment has expired: 'I'd like it to star
Source: CNN
(CNN)Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a long-time supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, suggested Monday night that the deadline to ratify the measure as a constitutional amendment has expired and that the decades long effort must start anew.
"I would like to see a new beginning," Ginsburg told an audience at Georgetown University Law Center.
"I'd like it to start over," she added.
Ginsburg was responding to a question from the moderator of the event, Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who asked whether there would ever be an Equal Rights Amendment on the federal level.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-equal-rights-amendment/index.html
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)I too would "like it to start over".
Croney
(4,661 posts)the important things will be put first again.
Jose Garcia
(2,598 posts)not_the_one
(2,227 posts)The New Rules suggest that old rules no longer matter. After all, we no longer have the rule of law. The laws we do have no longer apply to everyone, only to those who must be controlled, like truth tellers and patriots.
Besides.....
No telling how the the new Dem President could influence the people, who influence the legislatures, who would get it done.
Apparently the American public can be lead around by the nose. "But I've heard it so often it MUST be the truth", barks the nose leash gang...
Or, if you continually and repeatedly use your influence to positively affect the process for a positive outcome for equality, it may just happen.
Ya never know.
Blues Heron
(5,938 posts)Plus, deadlines don't "expire" they "pass" When was the deadline if it's passed already? Why didn't it make the news as it ticked closer and closer?
pazzyanne
(6,556 posts)https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/politics/equal-rights-amendment-justice-department-opinion/index.html
Thanks, Phyllis Schlafly.
Blues Heron
(5,938 posts)Does it say when the alleged deadline was?
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)Congress later extended it to 1982
The court was considering whether Congress could extend the deadline (and/or set one in the first place), and whether ratifying states could rescind that act, when the later deadline expired and the issue was moot.
Blues Heron
(5,938 posts)Is it actually in the constitution?
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)By one view, the last state necessary for ratification (VA) did so a few weeks ago. My understanding is that some state AGs were suing to have it be recognized... but the executive branch had declared that the expired deadline kept that from occurring.
While the legal issues seem clear enough... I'm surprised that RBG would make such a statement (implying that the lawsuit isn't going anywhere).
Blues Heron
(5,938 posts)Doesn't bode well for passage w/out her.
brooklynite
(94,614 posts)...but the specific ERA Bill passed by the House and Senate incorporated one.
Blues Heron
(5,938 posts)Jose Garcia
(2,598 posts)FBaggins
(26,748 posts)IIRC, that's where things stood when the supposed extension ran out in 1982. A lower court had ruled that Congress didn't have the power to extend the deadline and SCOTUS determined that the issue was moot since the supposed extension had passed by the time they heard the appeal.
It's presumably even less likely to be valid to "extend" a long-expired deadline than it is to extend one that had yet to expire.
pazzyanne
(6,556 posts)The window set was seven years, or 1979. That window was extended to 1982. However states have continued to pass, and in some cases rescind, all the way to 2019. Every year since 1982, bills have been introduced to remove the deadline without that happening. Recently, I believe in December, 2019, Alabama, South Dakota, and Louisiana filed a Federal Lawsuit to prevent the ERA from being added to the 4th amendment. (How sad is that?)
Blues Heron
(5,938 posts)Polybius
(15,448 posts)The original expiration date was March 22, 1979. Before the time was up, it was extended again to June 30, 1982. They were unable to extend again, but it was all over the news in '82. I'm old, I remember.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)way, save for the stupid legal challenges from Republican states of course.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)end up in the Supreme Court.
Given that Justice Ginsberg herself thinks the deadline has expired, those attempts are unlikely to prevail.
ripcord
(5,425 posts)"So if you count a latecomer on the plus side how can you disregard states that said, 'Weve changed our minds?'"