Lawmakers Re-Introduce The Equal Rights Amendment In Response To Wal-Mart Ruling

[Tx4obama]

This week, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to 1.5 million women by throwing out their charges of comprehensive gender discrimination by retail behemoth Walmart in a 5-4 decision. In response to the ruling, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) re-introduced the Equal Rights Amendment, a bill that affirms the equal application of the U.S. Constitution to both women and men by declaring “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

Although the ERA applies to government action and not discrimination by Walmart, ratifying the ERA would serve an important reminder that gender discrimination has no place in American society. Maloney said, “The Equal Rights Amendment is still needed because the only way for women to achieve permanent equality in the U.S. is to write it into the Constitution,” albeit “more than 200 years late.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/22/251618/lawmakers-re-introduce-the-equal-rights-amendment-in-response-to-wal-mart-ruling/

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I'm all for it.

Even though I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, esp. now.

Recommended.

[FreeJoe]

2. I'm confused

It was a unanimous decision, not 5-4.

I also don't understand the relevance of the ERA. Even if it wasn't restricted to government action, I don't think it would help. It is ALREADY illegal to discriminate in hiring or pay based on gender. The question is whether the plaintiffs met the standard for forming a class in a class action suit.

I'm trying to think of what practical effect the ERA would have today. What gender discrimination is still legal? I suppose it would be a stronger guarantee that we wouldn't roll back gender protections. Other than that, what would it change? I guess the selective service act would apply to women. They would have fewer restrictions on military service. Maybe better restroom parity? What am I missing?

[DURHAM D]

3. What are you missing? Apparently everything as regards women.

[FreeJoe]

7. Hmmm....

That wasn't particularly illuminating. Are you throwing away an opportunity to educate me?

[DURHAM D]

10. You are not interested in being educated or you would be already.

The information is readily available. You are just looking to have some fun and I won't play.



You could just go find some Republican women to talk to - they will make you comfortable.

[Kurovski]

12. +100,000

[ej510]

4. Republicons will block this bill, because they believe only white males should be

in control.

[Raine]

5. It will never pass but I'm glad that it

has been brought up as a symbolic gesture anyway.

[CTyankee]

6. I'd really like to see someone like Michelle Bachmann get up and talk against it.

Really. I'd like to see that.

The last time this thing got put out there we had all this talk about unisex bathrooms because nobody could come up with a sane reason to oppose it.

Let's have the unisex bathroom fight again. I'll throw the first punch with airline travel...

[jberryhill]

8. And this would have changed the outcome, how?

A lot of class actions fail to qualify as class actions because the specifics of the claims among the proposed class are different in terms of things like time, type of injury, extent of liability, and so on. That was why this suit was rejected.

I'm certainly in favor of an ERA, but it is really sad that we have people writing laws who are too stupid to grasp the basis on which a court decision issued.

[DURHAM D]

11. Those damn women ...

Just because they all have vaginas doesn't mean there weren't dozens of reasons why they were paid less than men and were not given opportunity for advancement.

Oh wait - NO - there was only one reason.

[jberryhill]

15. Which has what to do with failure to qualify as a class action?

[Trajan]

13. The ERA would demand equal treatment for women in the workplace

At least that is how it is envisioned ...

It would make it unnecessary to file class action suits regarding gender fairness in the workplace ....

The court decision regarded the class, and not the issue at hand .... The ERA speaks to that issue, and not the legitimacy of class action ....

They still need to be fairly compensated ....

[jberryhill]

16. Just like the first amendment renders free speech court cases unnecessary?

No law and no Constitutional amendment makes lawsuits unnecessary.

Would you care to explain how an ERA would have:

(a) changed the behavior of Wal-Mart rendering lawsuits unnecessary, or

(b) changed the basis of this decision not to certify a class.

[DURHAM D]

17. Perhaps if the EEOC was doing its job none of this -

the class action or the ERA would be necessary.

However, every since the Great Serial Sexual Harasser of them all (Clarence Thomas) neutered the agency its all just good fun.

[martymar64]

9. I support the ERA!

[Chan790]

14. Me too. n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

18. K & R.

[niyad]

19. I remember being told we didn't need the ERA because the courts would protect us.