As the DNC Chair Tom Perez calls for a recanvass of the Iowa Caucus goes, advocates for the Equal Rights Amendment are even more “math confused.”
As Wikipedia describes it(emphasis added):
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is or was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex.
There should be no doubt, the life of the ERA has expired. As National Review writes:
When Congress originally submitted the ERA to the states for ratification in 1972, it gave it a March 1979 deadline. Deadlines have been a common feature of amendments, one the Supreme Court unanimously declared permissible in 1921. The ERA didn’t get enough states to ratify it before that deadline. Congress then, by a simple majority, purported to extend the deadline for three years — an act declared unconstitutional by the only court to review it. (It takes a two-thirds supermajority, the kind the ERA got in 1972, to submit an amendment for ratification.) The ERA didn’t get ratified by the new, dubious deadline, either. At that point, in 1982, everyone — including the Supreme Court — acknowledged that the amendment was dead.Read more
On the Presidential Primary debate stage and in general, Democrats and their liberal base have gone so far left that they are regularly getting called out by liberal-icon Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This is because, while Justice Ginsburg is still very liberal and no friend of moderates or conservatives, she is looking at least rational and realistic. Let’s run through a few issues and items.Read more
If Ben Franklin were alive today, he would amend his famous quote on Death and Taxes to say the only things certain in life are Death, Taxes and that liberals will attack any judicial nominee of President Trump. Today we will briefly go over that the fallout over the defamatory attacks on Judge Brett Kavanaugh continue, the latest outrageous attack on a Jewish nominee, and a bit of news on the future.Read more
There is a new, troubling trend among 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates this cycle: advocating and promoting a “litmus test,” or judicial philosophy benchmark, for judicial and Supreme Court candidates if he or she happens to be elected President of the United States.
Such a trend goes against the history of judicial nominations and threatens the principle of judicial independence. Some even call the implementation of a judicial litmus test as breaking the “political taboo.”Read more