General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsthe courts will protect our rights--women don't need the ERA or any kind of legislation.
Who here besides me remembers being told that time and time and time again back in the early days of the current women's movement? That was one of the big arguments against the ERA, against legislation aimed at overturning discrimination, etc. THE COURTS WILL PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.
didn't believe it then, and most certainly will NEVER believe it of the courts in this land.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)It has become the last thing anyone is willing to hold the dems to account on.
cally
(21,589 posts)and guessing that these court rulings would not exist if we had succeeded in passing the ERA
niyad
(112,424 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,417 posts)I am a patriot and am working my corner as hard as I can to turn this around. I shall not be moved.
KT2000
(20,544 posts)the refusal to pass the ERA is simply to be able to deny rights - for whatever excuse.
KauaiK
(544 posts)The Equal Rights Amendment was something so basic. The onslaught of negative, dire consequences by Schafly and her cohorts still riles me after all these years.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The ERA would not have prohibited sex discrimination. It would have prohibited sex discrimination by government. It would have had no effect on discrimination by private companies.
Consider the example of the Equal Protection Clause. From its inception, it was interpreted as barring racial discrimination, because it was enacted as part of the Civil War Amendments that addressed the situation of blacks post-slavery. It was on that basis that, in 1954, the Supreme Court held that racially segregated public schools were unconstitutional. Nevertheless, racial discrimination by private entities -- in employment, in housing, even in serving black customers at a barbeque shop -- was still legal in many states. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that such private racial discrimination became illegal.
Hobby Lobby did not involve discrimination by government. It involved discrimination by a private entity that government did not use its power to prevent. As the example of race shows, government inaction in such circumstances is not unconstitutional.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I never, not once, thought that any court of mostly males (and back when that argument was being made, most judges were male) could be relied upon to possess an understanding and appreciation of the needs of females, without issue or without fail.
It's like the fox watching the henhouse!
I still think we need the ERA. I'd love to see it become law.