Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #sjres1
Most recents (2)
In new CNN piece @VeronicaStrac, sharply contrasting assessments of the 3-5-21 ERA deadline ruling by Judge Rudolph Contreras. CNN says the judge "dealt a blow to advocates of the ERA" by upholding the deadline and rejecting late actions by VA, IL, and NV.
cnn.com/2021/03/06/pol…
cnn.com/2021/03/06/pol…
Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life said Democrats in Congress & state AGs are on "a political-pressure campaign to intimidate the federal courts into permitting them to air-drop the long-expired ERA into the Constitution, [but] a federal judge appointed by President Obama 
ignored the political pressures and unflinchingly enforced the Constitution." But Katherine Franke of the ERA Project at Columbia Law School said, "Yesterday's ruling is not really a setback for sex equality or the ERA, rather it renews our focus on the bill
51, 60, 67?
Later this month, Senate Democrats plan to complain about an anticipated Republican filibuster of S.J. Res. 1, which purports to "remove" the ERA deadline. 60 votes, awful! Yet, the lawyers at Legislative Counsel drafted it to require 2/3 (67, if all senators vote)!
Later this month, Senate Democrats plan to complain about an anticipated Republican filibuster of S.J. Res. 1, which purports to "remove" the ERA deadline. 60 votes, awful! Yet, the lawyers at Legislative Counsel drafted it to require 2/3 (67, if all senators vote)!
How could such an "error" occur? Well, it's not really an error--it was drafting by the book. After all, the resolutions purport to be based on Article V, and Article V always requires 2/3 votes. But the ERA-revival scheme requires the pretense that Congress can
retroactively amend the 1972 ERA resolution, which required 2/3 votes, by simple majority votes. Apparently, somebody forgot to order the professional drafting attorneys to conform to this political fiction! To "fix," Senate Democrats will employ a rare "stealth edit" trick,
