Article

2020-02-11 Government

Comments From The Activist Ginsburg Bench - 'Equal Rights Amendment Would Herald Perfection'

Dream weaving.

[The Hill] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Monday the U.S. still needs an Equal Rights Amendment, days before the House is set to decide whether to remove the deadline to ratify the amendment.

Ginsburg spoke at a Georgetown Law School event Monday almost 100 years after women voted in their first presidential election. The justice mentioned how the National Women’s Party viewed the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote as "the beginning" after courts interpreted the amendment to only apply to voting rights.

"Their idea was the 19th Amendment was the beginning, but women should have equality in all fields of human endeavor, so we needed an Equal Rights Amendment," she said. "And I think, at least in my view, we still do."

She said the U.S. would be "more perfect" if "our fundamental instrument of government" included a statement designating men and women of equal citizenship statures.

"My notion was I would like to show my granddaughters that the equal citizenship stature of men and women is a fundamental human right," she said. "It should be right up there with free speech freedom of religion and discrimination based on race, national origin."

Ginsburg’s comments come as the House plans to vote on legislation to get rid of the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment on Friday. The vote was scheduled after Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the amendment last month, decades after the deadline.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has hinted he isn’t in support of the amendment.

In other words, House Democrats are posturing for the rubes again — it’ll never get past the Senate even if the thing hadn’t expired long since.But if it really is that important to the Democrats, they can try starting the whole thing from scratch, either in both houses of Congress or a Constitutional convention of the states, just like they did the first time.

Posted by Besoeker 2020-02-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 Who needs legislative bodies when we have these black robed tyrants ?

Posted by Besoeker 2020-02-11 00:13|| 2020-02-11 00:13|| Front Page Top

#2 The case for racial equality is much stronger than the case for gender equality.
(Clue: Men and women are biologically different.)

Posted by Lex 2020-02-11 00:27|| 2020-02-11 00:27|| Front Page Top

#3 Senile old bat, like Pelosi.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2020-02-11 03:02|| 2020-02-11 03:02|| Front Page Top

#4 Equal in what ways?

Treatment by the state?

In group or individual?

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2020-02-11 05:57|| 2020-02-11 05:57|| Front Page Top

#5 It failed. It failed as the Founders intended the process to work. Instead of accepting the intent of their work, you have been twisting and mangling the 14th Amendment to achieve what was Constitutionally rejected. That's why we are now in social turmoil with all sorts of 'rights' proclaimed by so many self identified special interest groups and perversions. Get your f'ing finger out of social engineering the culture.

Posted by Procopius2k 2020-02-11 06:56|| 2020-02-11 06:56|| Front Page Top

#6 I think her notions of equality were best demonstrated in the decision concerning the Virginia Military Institute. In the penultimate paragraph she expounds at somewhat purple length about having never seen, read, heard of anything so grossly unfair as excluding women from the Institute.

But it is her final paragraph that shines a beacon on the intellect of this harridan who incidentally once advocated looking to 'other countries such as Zimbabwe for legal guidance'. Yes, the final paragraph is where she warns there could be something even worse than excluding women.

What pray tell could that be? Why, obviously it would be admitting women and then expecting them to perform the same tasks as their male counterparts to the same standards. THAT is what she considers equality. One might have to don the chem suit and actually plumb the depths of 'The View' to find this Quaker Oats level of mental acuity.

Posted by Cesare 2020-02-11 07:47|| 2020-02-11 07:47|| Front Page Top

#7 Ref #5: Less than 100 words, but profoundly correct.

Posted by Besoeker 2020-02-11 07:50|| 2020-02-11 07:50|| Front Page Top

#8 I am often, these days, reminded of one of the locutions of an old respected Democrat in the Senate about the dangers inherent in "defining deviancy down."

I figure that DPM has to be rotating in his grave at almost warp speed by now.

Posted by AlanC 2020-02-11 13:00|| 2020-02-11 13:00|| Front Page Top

#9 Equal Rights Amendment? When I first heard that many years ago I started laughing. The first step would be declaring all, repeat all gender specific law null and void. For example: what happens when all of the divorce, child custody, et cetera case law get tossed into the shredder? What about conscription? The differences in sentencing between male and female criminals. The list seems endless...

No, "Some animals are more equal than others" - George Orwell, and the ERA was a hypocritical power grab by some groups from the onset. If "Judge" Ruth Bader Ginsburg worships at that altar she lies when she claims to be an impartial jurist.

Posted by magpie 2020-02-11 20:07|| 2020-02-11 20:07|| Front Page Top

08:53 Gleng Whaick2262
08:37 ed in texas
08:30 Besoeker
08:30 Besoeker
08:12 Procopius2k
08:10 Procopius2k
07:54 Grom the Affective
06:54 Richard Aubrey
06:49 MikeKozlowski
06:48 MikeKozlowski
06:46 Richard Aubrey
06:46 MikeKozlowski
06:44 Richard Aubrey
06:34 NN2N1
06:33 Grom the Affective
06:30 NN2N1
06:23 Grom the Affective
06:16 NN2N1
06:09 NN2N1
05:39 Whiskey Mike
05:37 Whiskey Mike
05:29 Whiskey Mike
05:25 Whiskey Mike
05:23 Whiskey Mike