"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. "Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Congress included a time limit (later extended) separately. As noted in the article, the Supreme Court years back said it was illogical to think an amendment could be pending for all time or something. The time limit passed, but three states decided to try ratifying, Virginia doing so two years ago as of Wednesday (1/27). So, in theory, it's is now in effect. (Not really.)
Some, including some in Congress, think the Constitution does not allow for time limits. But, I don't think you really should be overly literal there on what is implied by the text. Liberals are not strict texualists in general. Congress twice set forth time limits and they were both sensible and reasonable application of the law.
The article basically argues the bottom line is what society will accept. And, some Easter Egg where the ERA is by quirk of fate the law of the land without some additional action is probably a bit much there. That is the charm of some congressional action to deal with the time limit. Given my druthers, I would have the states do it (though again I don't think experience or constitutional principle should count recissions though they can factor into congressional judgment). Congress is a valid reflection of the American public all the same.
The 27A didn't have one and it's a joker anyway. It didn't really do anything, the law already covering pay increases, a minor issue too. Plus, I don't think it was a great precedent. Anyway, if the thing was re-submitted, the extra few legislatures probably would have ratified anyway, like they wind up doing after it was announced as the law of the land.
A final thing is again what the thing does. The article links to a list of things supporters suggest it can do. The big concern, of course, is abortion, though I bet some anti-abortion types who support sexual equality (or say they do) would argue it doesn't require it, just as the current Constitution does not. What does "equality of rights" mean? "Deny or abridge" is also different from "deny" [Equal Protection Clause] or "deprive" [due process] though just how "abridge" changes it is unclear.
I'll repeat my argument that a debate should be have, especially on just what it does. I asked a question at some book event and two of the law professors from Strict Scrutiny Podcast took the question (in writing) and basically didn't know either. Perhaps, we can have a full debate.
SCOTUS Confirmation: Another commentary talks about the likely "bitterness" of the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation, one that is likely to bring up recent controversies. Yes. And, it should. It should bring up it all. Let's air it out and have an open debate and so on. Let's sneer at this shit:
“It is a sad commentary on the nomination process that it has so disintegrated over the years,” said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the handful of Republicans considered to be in play as potential backers of Mr. Biden’s pick. “If you look at the incredibly strong vote by which Stephen Breyer was confirmed, you just don’t see it nowadays.”
Sad commentary that Sen. Collins was in full troll mode supporting Kavanaugh. Running for re-election, especially since her vote didn't matter, she was the sole Republican who couldn't with a straight face vote for Barrett after letting Garland swing in the wind. Again, the vote didn't matter, so I don't really think much credit should be given for someone running for re-election against supposed real competition [people repeatedly were sure she would lose; she won by almost 10 points].
Breyer was supported by the likes of Sen. Orin Hatch, and confirmed to the court of appeals after Carter lost re-election. But, Garland was also previously supported as a great choice by Republicans. No hearings or anything. So sad. Both sides do it, you know. Kagan was another person who should have received wide support, especially given her palsy-walsy with conservatives in academia. Was not to be.
But, didn't Sen. Obama "filibuster" Alito and not support Roberts? There was not enough votes to block Alito. It was just a symbolic vote, one dealing with an important swing vote that clearly shifted to the right on multiple key issues. And, yes, some Democrats didn't vote for Roberts for Chief Justice (opponent of voting rights). Half of them did. Only a handful of Republicans voted for either Obama pick.
Anyway, some people are arguing that Republicans won't go all in here with the stakes not that high and ultimately (other than the asinine idea that a VP can't cast the tying vote) not having the votes. They could in theory try to block action in committee (two have to show up for a quorum), but I doubt they will go that far. If they do, the Dems can change the rules.
I think ultimately at least 2-3 Republicans will vote for the nominee, even if they will in general make some show of it. But, again, it's necessary and proper to bring up wider issues, along with the usual pomp and congratulations.
RIP: An black actress who is a cult favorite recently died. RIP Carol Speed. One person who also was in one of her hits is Austin Stoker (still with us), who was in the 1970s classic, Assault on Precinct 13, which was remade with the usual over the top touches, films these days not realizing the low key can be better (see also, Day of the Woman).
Talking film, there were two Robert Downey Sr. (father of the better known actor) cult films from the 1960s on late TCM last night. Both are B&W and work better in small doses in my view. Babo 73 is an off the wall short (under an hour) film about a future President. Putney Swope is a full length satire about a black man who takes over an advertising agency.
I saw bits of both and again found them off the wall but tiresome after awhile. The director actually dubbed the lead actor in the second (the actor had trouble remembering his lines; the dub is of a gravely voiced person that seems to fit the character, who looks like he should be playing jazz some place). A bit part was played by the actor who was the psychologist on the television show MASH, one of a few familiar faces (Mel Brooks is apparently in there some place too).
TCM tosses in some cultish films sometimes late at night. They also play silent films sometimes. You can find some interesting stuff if you look. And, maybe unlike me, you actually will find yourself watching the whole thing. Svengoolie tonight conveniently is playing a film I saw a bit of (and it looked interesting) on a classics channel.
Not the first time that happened by coincidence, but not so close to the first time seeing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!