Will Ruth Bader Ginsburg kill the Equal Rights Amendment?

Iconic progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg's feminist legacy is in jeopardy.  It has to do with the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment  (ERA).  Here's the story. 

Since being taken over by new-era Democrats, Virginia has continued its hard tilt to the left by voting to ratify the ERA this past January.  It takes 38 states to ratify an amendment before it is incorporated into the Constitution, and Virginia makes the 38th. 

But not so fast.  There are several problems.  First, Virginia, as well as several other states, have ratified the ERA decades after the time limit set by Congress for its national passage lapsed.  Number two, since initially ratifying the ERA, four states have revoked their initial ratification.  They are Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, and South Dakota.  Since Article V of the Constitution is silent on whether or not a state can rescind its ratification, proponents of the ERA argue that once a state ratifies an amendment, it is ratified for good.  That logic defies common sense.  In any event, this is a question that will be left up to the courts and Congress to decide.

The deadline for the ERA's passage was in 1979.  Not to be deterred by such a technicality, Nancy Pelosi's House now has a plan to retroactively extend the deadline to complete the ratification process.  This is the same-old, same-old leftist tactic Democrats use of moving the goalposts when losing. 

Republicans oppose this extension, saying it is unconstitutional.  Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the leading Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said: "Congress does not have the constitutional authority to retroactively revive a failed constitutional amendment and subject citizens in all 50 states through the current political trend in just one state."

Collins's argument makes sense, especially when you consider that a sizable proportion of today's population wasn't even alive when the initial states rushed pell-mell to pass the ERA.  This is 2020, and the ground has shifted since then. 

Democrats are muddling the issue and using tortured logic to get the ERA into the Constitution.  This where Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes in.  Being true to her feminist instincts, she has often said it is important for the ERA to become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.  However, being true to the rule of law and common sense, RBG is also now saying that the deadline for the ERA has passed and that it cannot be retroactively extended. 

Here's her quote.

I would like to see a new beginning.  I'd like it [the ERA] to start over.  There's too much controversy about latecomers — Virginia long after the deadline passed — plus a number of states have withdrawn their ratification.  So if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said, "We've changed our minds"?

To rewrite an Equal Rights Amendment and to start the ratification process all over again would be mission: impossible.  To many on the left, RBG's attitude spells the end of line for the ERA.  Left-wing website Vox ran a story under the title "Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably just dealt a fatal blow to the Equal Rights Amendment."  Probably so.  Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who single-handily stalled the initial passage the ERA, is doubtless smiling at the irony of that. 

When RGB finally sails off into the sunset, she will be savaged by the progressive community.  Although they are stifling their criticism of Ginsburg for now, they are still hopping mad inside at her for not stepping down when Barack Obama was president and the Democrats controlled the Senate.  That would have ensured the appointment of a liberal justice for the Supreme Court as her replacement.  But now, when she leaves the court, it's likely Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell will be the ones doing the selecting and confirming.  To top that off, Ginsburg now further disappoints the left by following the law as it is written regarding the ERA.  Will wonders never cease?

Iconic progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg's feminist legacy is in jeopardy.  It has to do with the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment  (ERA).  Here's the story. 

Since being taken over by new-era Democrats, Virginia has continued its hard tilt to the left by voting to ratify the ERA this past January.  It takes 38 states to ratify an amendment before it is incorporated into the Constitution, and Virginia makes the 38th. 

But not so fast.  There are several problems.  First, Virginia, as well as several other states, have ratified the ERA decades after the time limit set by Congress for its national passage lapsed.  Number two, since initially ratifying the ERA, four states have revoked their initial ratification.  They are Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, and South Dakota.  Since Article V of the Constitution is silent on whether or not a state can rescind its ratification, proponents of the ERA argue that once a state ratifies an amendment, it is ratified for good.  That logic defies common sense.  In any event, this is a question that will be left up to the courts and Congress to decide.

The deadline for the ERA's passage was in 1979.  Not to be deterred by such a technicality, Nancy Pelosi's House now has a plan to retroactively extend the deadline to complete the ratification process.  This is the same-old, same-old leftist tactic Democrats use of moving the goalposts when losing. 

Republicans oppose this extension, saying it is unconstitutional.  Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the leading Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said: "Congress does not have the constitutional authority to retroactively revive a failed constitutional amendment and subject citizens in all 50 states through the current political trend in just one state."

Collins's argument makes sense, especially when you consider that a sizable proportion of today's population wasn't even alive when the initial states rushed pell-mell to pass the ERA.  This is 2020, and the ground has shifted since then. 

Democrats are muddling the issue and using tortured logic to get the ERA into the Constitution.  This where Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes in.  Being true to her feminist instincts, she has often said it is important for the ERA to become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.  However, being true to the rule of law and common sense, RBG is also now saying that the deadline for the ERA has passed and that it cannot be retroactively extended. 

Here's her quote.

I would like to see a new beginning.  I'd like it [the ERA] to start over.  There's too much controversy about latecomers — Virginia long after the deadline passed — plus a number of states have withdrawn their ratification.  So if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said, "We've changed our minds"?

To rewrite an Equal Rights Amendment and to start the ratification process all over again would be mission: impossible.  To many on the left, RBG's attitude spells the end of line for the ERA.  Left-wing website Vox ran a story under the title "Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably just dealt a fatal blow to the Equal Rights Amendment."  Probably so.  Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who single-handily stalled the initial passage the ERA, is doubtless smiling at the irony of that. 

When RGB finally sails off into the sunset, she will be savaged by the progressive community.  Although they are stifling their criticism of Ginsburg for now, they are still hopping mad inside at her for not stepping down when Barack Obama was president and the Democrats controlled the Senate.  That would have ensured the appointment of a liberal justice for the Supreme Court as her replacement.  But now, when she leaves the court, it's likely Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell will be the ones doing the selecting and confirming.  To top that off, Ginsburg now further disappoints the left by following the law as it is written regarding the ERA.  Will wonders never cease?