Justice Department Backs GOP Effort To Block Equal Rights Amendment

[riversedge]

Source: huff post




01/08/2020 01:08 pm ET Updated 4 hours ago

The war over women’s equality is just getting going, and it’s going to be bruising with the Trump administration already signaling its stand against the ERA.



UPDATE ― 6:06 p.m. EST Wednesday: The Trump administration’s Department of Justice made it clear that it opposes the Equal Rights Amendment.


There’s a constitutional showdown heating up over equal rights for women, somehow still a contentious issue in 2020.

That’s because the Equal Rights Amendment, which passed Congress in 1972 and would amend the Constitution to give women equal standing under the law, is on the verge of ratification. Within the next few weeks, Virginia is expected to become the 38th state to ratify the ERA, clearing the Constitutional threshold for ratification, which is three-fourths of the states.

Already, Republicans are in court trying to block the ERA’s inclusion in the Constitution. At the end of December, three GOP attorneys general filed a suit in a federal court in Alabama to block the ERA’s ratification, arguing that it’s not constitutional.

On Tuesday, activists at the women’s rights group Equal Means Equal and the young women’s group Yellow Roses filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court, seeking to make sure the amendment makes its way into the Constitution after Virginia ratifies, pushing back on the arguments in the GOP lawsuit.................

Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-rights-amendment-constitution-ratification-lawsuit_n_5e1601c4c5b66361cb5e1e65

---

?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale
Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/HuffPost; Photos: Getty

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Tiggeroshii]

1. The constitution is pretty clear about how this works, and delaying it after passage is obviously

Illegal. No court should be able to say otherwise.

[stopdiggin]

7. this really should be re-introduced, re-passed, and ratification started over

there was a clear time limit for ratification, long since passed, included in the ERA that makes recent ratification efforts most likely null and void.

[Tiggeroshii]

11. Meeting time limits are not a constitutional requirement for ratification.

Last edited Thu Jan 9, 2020, 02:42 AM - Edit history (2)

Simply attaining the state approval, is however.

The time limit thing is very likely unenforceable constitutionally.

[stopdiggin]

18. that's what is being debated

and is a large part of what the current lawsuits (or filings) are contesting. I guess we'll find out.

(I also found it interesting that this was not touched upon anywhere in the OP or the string .. did we not think a fairly central point to the argument was relevant?)

[Tiggeroshii]

19. I mean unless the constitution is changed, I dont think the laws passed should have any relevance.

I think the legal challenges are a bunch of crap.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. During this (mis-)administration, it should be called the Dept. of Injustice.

[atreides1]

16. No

It should be called what it is:

TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP and barr

[JudyM]

3. Good differentiator of the parties for voters in the middle.

[Tiggeroshii]

4. I imagine the choice couldn't be clearer

I don't actually think opposing the ERA is as mainstream as they might think.

[Skittles]

5. who could imagine the party of a self-professed pussy grabber would be anti-ERA

[Progressive Jones]

6. The GOP underestimates the power of women at the polls.

Fighting the ERA after all this time is political suicide, besides being morally retarded.

[BigmanPigman]

8. Women's March 2020 is in 10 days...great timing!

Mark your calendars, the 4th Women's March has been planned around the US and the world. The original leaders and agenda are back (no more personal political agendas, those people are gone). The theme is Women Rising. Check the link often for a "sister march" near you. Some marches have not been posted on the map but are happening none the less (like the San Diego one I signed up for a few months ago). Check Fakebook for your own home town too.

Spread the word and bring some friends! RESISTANCE IS PATRIOTIC!

https://womensmarch.com/

[cstanleytech]

10. I hope the judges laugh them out of court as you cannot block an amendment to

the Constitution by arguing its unconstitutional.

[ArizonaLib]

14. I hope so too

but this court does what it wants. It either uses reasoning that the the constitutional text is explicit, or it says the legislation is not fair, or that a party faces permanent damages (as in the Bush v Gore - like Gore was not also going to suffer permanently), or that the intent of the constitution was also different than the case before it. The conservatives on the court are not justices - they are partisan/ideologues.

The judges SHOULD laugh them out of court.

[SunSeeker]

12. No woman should be a Republican. None.

Nor should any decent human being for that matter.

[JohnnyRingo]

13. It's incredible that it was never ratified.

Technically, it means women are the most discriminated against demo in the country. I know the argument that "women already have equal rights", but if that were true there wouldn't be such an effort to quash it.

Are people afraid they may get too many rights? is that possible?

[ArizonaLib]

15. The are a coalition of cultists

Cults require perceived threats to exist. Part of this coalition are religious fundamentalists who generally suppress women's interests. It basically keeps a group of people in the room that others can feel superior over. They are sick and evil.

[atreides1]

17. Right

Many women are an integral part of those religious fundamentalists organizations and are just as much for the suppression of women's interests as the men who run them!!!