Mary Gay Scanlon: “Certainly we see a laundry list of reasons for opposition to this bill. We hear that it is unconstitutional. Although…”

“Certainly we see a laundry list of reasons for opposition to this bill. We hear that it is unconstitutional. Although, in fact, nothing in the Constitution speaks to deadlines that Congress may set. We usually hear our colleagues from across the aisle invoking Justice Ginsburg to argue that for some reason we should start over with this century-long process. Justice Ginsburg has obviously been a champion on these issues, and to the extent that remarks that she has made are being quoted, I understand that they were expressing a personal view about the ideal circumstances in which the ERA could pass, not a legal view about what is required. It is probably better to remember that Justice Ginsburg has been a champion for the ERA since it was approved by both Houses of Congress in a bipartisan way in the 1970s. And as she reiterated just yesterday, ``The union will be more perfect when that simple statement--that men and women are persons of equal citizenship stature--is part of our fundamental instrument of government.'' Please note, this is a tactic of distracting and dividing. Last night I asked our colleague if he would be willing to vote for the ERA if, in fact, we were to start over, which he said he would not. And we certainly do not see members of the Republican party saying that they would vote for the ERA if it would be reintroduced.…”