Share this comment
That must be because there aren’t 10 Republican votes.
The filibuster cudgel requires 60 votes for almost everything. You can thank Manchin and Sinema for maintaining that. wapo.st/3nLXlLJ (free to read).
It only takes a simple majority to kill the filibuster. If Sinema is replaced by Gallego and we (sigh) keep Manchin, and stay at 50 or 5…
That must be because there aren’t 10 Republican votes.
The filibuster cudgel requires 60 votes for almost everything. You can thank Manchin and Sinema for maintaining that. https://wapo.st/3nLXlLJ (free to read).
It only takes a simple majority to kill the filibuster. If Sinema is replaced by Gallego and we (sigh) keep Manchin, and stay at 50 or 51, we do have the vice presidential vote, then finally. Simple majority.
But most people don’t know about the filibuster cudgel and understandably are upset that we couldn’t pass everything we wanted with our majority. This is why.
I’ve heard some opinion that Senate action is not required but rather the archivist merely needs to ‘publish’ the amendment.
Even so, unlike abortion, equal rights under the constitution is far more fundamental and would on the surface seem to be a political winner. I mean who’s going to come out and say otherwise?
So I find it curious that the Dems don’t seize the opportunity.
Not sure it’s really that simple. If it was, then the Democrats would, surely.
Unfortunately it is indeed not that simple - The 27th amendment took 203 years to ratify, but the ERA was supposed to be ratified in 38 states by 1979, due to a Congress-imposed deadline. 35/38 states have ratified the amendment. The good news is that the 1979 deadline was included in Congress’ proposal for an amendment, not the actual text passed by states. A new proposal passed by a dem congress would fix this, but then again the filibuster becomes an issue, and 5 of the original 35 have tried (not clear if legal) to rescind their pre-1979 ratification https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/pathstoratification
I’m raising on this forum because I do think it’s that simple. Judd is quite good at exposing hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. Anyway, would love to explore.
One writer explained that we don't want "equal rights" because women deserve more rights for pregnancy and childbirth and maternity leave. There is no "equal" about it because males don't give birth nor breastfeed. Most developed nations have far more generous policies for women who give birth and parent. The equal rights amendment serves up an important measure of equality, but this part, where females are unique, doesn't get addressed appropriately.
Hmm yeah but doesn’t that sound like a right wing talking point. At minimum, there’s a sizable portion (majority!) of the voting population that doesn’t have equal standing under the constitution.
I’m raising this in this forum because I have a suspicion Democrats must have as much to gain from not seeing the ERA through. Much like when corporations give lip service to progressive causes and still fund politicians who oppose those policies.
I wonder if part of the problem is a repeated use of "one size fits all" policies, when one size fits very few (and I think we know who the very few are).
Yeah, Texas passed its own ERA 45 years ago, but it has meant very little in practice except for potty parity in public facilities.