GOP Congressman, Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/richard-hanna-gop-congress_n_1373381.html

As the only Republican Congressman at a rally for the Equal Rights Amendment on Thursday, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) gave women an unexpected piece of advice: Give your money to Democrats.

"I think these are very precarious times for women, it seems. So many of your rights are under assault," he told the crowd of mostly women. "I'll tell you this: Contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side -- my side -- has a lot of it. And you need to send your own message. You need to remind people that you vote, you matter, and that they can't succeed without your help."

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Does he normally go by 'Dick Hanna' or am I thinking of someone else?

[fezzyfestoon]

Good. An honest statement above partisan affiliation. My favorite kind of statement!

[asexual trans victimologist]

Richard Hanna's not always a great politician, as we can see here, but he seems to be a pretty damn impressive person from what I know of him.

[memphis]

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

[Svensson]

Well, at this rate, it's sure as hell true. And truth is something Congress has a disconcerting lack of these days. I just wonder how badly his district's GOP is going to murder him for it.

[nclib]

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

It can be reintroduced. Hanna seems to be one of the few sensible new Republicans.

[memphis]

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

It can be reintroduced. Hanna seems to be one of the few sensible new Republicans.

Indentured servitude could be reintroduced. It's about as likely.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

...Not a fan of this guy.

[nclib]

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

It can be reintroduced. Hanna seems to be one of the few sensible new Republicans.

Indentured servitude could be reintroduced. It's about as likely.

It has been reintroduced in several Congresses and the current one has 185 co-sponsors.

That said, I doubt it would get through Congress as long as the GOP holds one or both chambers.

[muon2]

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

Many groups believe that Congress could extend the limit by majority vote, and the 4 states that have rescinded their support had no basis to do so. Based on that, there are regular attempts in IL and other non-ratifying states to approve the 1972 amendment.

[memphis]

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

Many groups believe that Congress could extend the limit by majority vote, and the 4 states that have rescinded their support had no basis to do so. Based on that, there are regular attempts in IL and other non-ratifying states to approve the 1972 amendment.

That would rather defeat the purpose of having an expiration date, no?

[muon2]

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

Many groups believe that Congress could extend the limit by majority vote, and the 4 states that have rescinded their support had no basis to do so. Based on that, there are regular attempts in IL and other non-ratifying states to approve the 1972 amendment.

That would rather defeat the purpose of having an expiration date, no?

That would be my thought, but others believe differently.

[True Federalist]

The advocates of the three-state strategy are on very shaky ground.  Their primary argument rests upon the belief that Congress can after the fact revise its decisions concerning an amendment bit that States cannot.  One could argue from a consistent basis that the 30 State ratifications that have not been rescinded are still valid, and that if eight other states approve the ERA, Congress could then act to approve it.

But then the advocates of the three-state strategy run into a second issue.  They hope to follow the example of the 1978 Congressional extension and have it go into effect with a simple majority of each house.  The constitutionality of the 1978 extension was dubious because it did not pass with the requisite two-thirds vote of each house, and I doubt that it would hold up under a challenge.  The whole point of the three-state strategy is to avoid what is for now an unwinnable two-third vote in each house of Congress and I don't see them being able to avoid it.

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation?  Passage of the ERA seems to have as much relevance as the passage of the still pending Child Labor Amendment would have.

[Oakvale]

Is the same guy that was the sole (?) Huntsman endorser in Congress?

[fezzyfestoon]

Is the same guy that was the sole (?) Huntsman endorser in Congress?

Yes, indeed

[Vasall des Midas]

You know, reading the thread headline I thought it was tongue-in-cheek and the article would be about something misinterpretable as that.

But it's literally what he said and what he meant. Wow.

wikipedia, abridged to remove the bits that don't fit the picture.

He is member of the LGBT Equality Caucus (one of three Republicans there, along with Ros Lehtinen and... a fellow NY Freshperson, Nan Hayworth. My note) He is one of only six House Republicans in the 112th Congress who have not signed Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," with a spokesman explaining that "Rep. Hanna is focusing on the pledges he has made to his wife, the Constitution of the United States and the people of upstate New York."

According to the Washington Post’s congressional votes database, Hanna has voted with the House Republicans 85% of the time in his first year in office. Only 11 Republicans (out of 244) have a lower percentage. (Again my note: America has come a long way towards an almost normal party system since 2000. 85% would have been an extremist's score in the 80s.)

Hanna published an Op-ed opposing the extension of the USA Patriot Act in February 2011. The piece published in the Syracuse Post Standard was later discovered to be largely plagiarized from a CATO editorial, lifting entire paragraphs verbatim and glossing the remaining text liberally. The Post-Standard editors reprimanded Hanna for his borderline unethical behavior.

[Nagas]

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation? 

It would create an explicit line in the Constitution to challenge the Draft on the grounds that it is sexist.

[nclib]

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation? 

It would create an explicit line in the Constitution to challenge the Draft on the grounds that it is sexist.

Most supporters of the ERA would probably not want a draft for either gender, so I don't think that is their goal.

In plenty of cases (esp. jobs), it is easier to discriminate against a white woman than a black man (or woman).

[True Federalist]

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation? 

It would create an explicit line in the Constitution to challenge the Draft on the grounds that it is sexist.

Most supporters of the ERA would probably not want a draft for either gender, so I don't think that is their goal.

In plenty of cases (esp. jobs), it is easier to discriminate against a white woman than a black man (or woman).

Doubtful we'd see any draft cases until we had an actual draft, and if single gender registration for the draft was held unconstitutional, we'd likely just see both sexes required to register.  As for job discrimination, the existing provisions to fight it wouldn't be affected in the least.  They are based on the use of the Commerce Clause rather than the Reconstruction Amendments.