Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Stop Illinois Big Coal Bailouts
Next Post: Report: Trump “strongly considering” Blagojevich commutation
Posted in:
* These two made me chuckle…
BREAKING: Illinois House to get new speaker pic.twitter.com/rdzDuvWdws
— Zach Messersmith (@ZachMessersmith) May 30, 2018
Nothing's ever dead in Springfield because the temperature in the Capitol so effectively impedes decomposition.
— John Amdor (@JohnAmdor) May 29, 2018
* And these are from last night’s ERA debate in the House…
Longest vote I’ve ever witnessed. Watch it go from 67 to 72. pic.twitter.com/6VVI8h8OJc
— Hannah Meisel (@hannahmeisel) May 31, 2018
.@StateRepLouLang and Majority Leader @repcurrie watch the roll call verification as the Illinois House passes the #ERA.
Rep. Currie is one of a handful of legislators who was serving when the ERA was first an issue in Illinois. She’s retiring at the end of this term. pic.twitter.com/i0cpnYIAqW
— Brian Mackey (@BrianMackey) May 31, 2018
Flipping through my camera roll and spotted this emotional bipartisan embrace between @StateRepLouLang and @Andersson4Rep moments after vote. They’re the democrat and republican who led the #ERA charge in the House. pic.twitter.com/wcv1sRg2ju
— Raquel Martin (@WCIA3Raquel) May 31, 2018
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 10:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Stop Illinois Big Coal Bailouts
Next Post: Report: Trump “strongly considering” Blagojevich commutation
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Everyone seems a lot happier when they’re getting their paycheck on time and they sense they’ll be done on May 31st.
Funny how that works
Comment by Grand Avenue Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 11:04 am
Can we get someone from St. Louis to go check Phyllis Schlafly’s tomb in Calvary Cemetery? I wonder if she flipped over in her grave to know Illinois passed ERA.
Comment by Nearly Normal Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 11:05 am
Oh, Zach for the win! That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in ages.
Comment by JoanP Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 11:14 am
I guess Lou and Steve are enjoying their new found equality out in the open. This legislation means split the dinner bill I guess.
Comment by A guy Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 11:21 am
These are great. I have to say though that anyone who remembers how hot and gross it was in the capitol before they fixed the AC will never complain about being cold.
Comment by end? Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 11:24 am
Man I wish Rep. Andersson was running again. He would be the first Republican I’ve ever voted for. It stinks that voting your conscience makes you a target these days.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 11:28 am
when I was a kid my dad was in the House and they would routinely be in session all of June. My brothers and sister and I would come down to spend part of the month in the capitol working as honorary pages. I have vivid memories of the huge pro and anti ERA demonstrations under the Rotunda and recall that someone (not sure if they were pro or anti-ERA) riding in on a horse.
I also remember the feelings that the ERA engendered. The mother of one of our Catholic school classmates and friends of my dad told him that they would never vote for him or come to his fundraisers because of his pro-ERA vote.
Comment by paddyrollingstone Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 11:31 am
Hannah Meisel
@hannahmeisel
How about this one?
– 15h15 hours ago
More Hannah Meisel Retweeted Sam Dunklau
Just overheard @kmcconnaughay33 (R-St. Charles) say it’s her first time voting for a budget. Actually true of a lot of Republicans.–
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 12:04 pm
The precise reason we needed ERA is for people who think like this……
=I guess Lou and Steve are enjoying their new found equality out in the open. This legislation means split the dinner bill I guess.=
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 12:27 pm
JS, move on to the decaf. This is a fun thread, asking for fun answers. Look at the picture again. These two guys are overjoyed with each other, surrounded by women, who by my estimation, would be the ones most encouraged by the passing.
I’m not moved either way by this. I don’t think the bill is historic, memorable or consequential. Because; Fortunately, everything the poorly constructed language in the ERA was meant to address has been addressed over many years by decent people of every human stripe.
Your petty, foolish, judgmental comment says everything about what a un-dimensional person you are. You’re a flack for one thing, and so many others make a better case for that than you. Pound sand. You have no idea what I may have done in regard to equal rights. An educator ought to be better.
Have a little fun. That’s what the post was for.
Comment by A guy Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 1:13 pm
Is Lou’s hand above or below Andersson’s underpants line?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 3:02 pm
===the poorly constructed language in the ERA===
You keep saying that but you still haven’t offered any concrete suggestions to “improve it.” Why are you so afraid of spelling out exactly how the Amendment should be written?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 3:19 pm
Actually I did. Go back and look it up.
Comment by A guy Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 4:14 pm
And very seriously 47, at this point in time, with all of the progress made through the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution, don’t you think there could be a more specific request than a 35 year old failed, extended, failed again amendment?
Listening to the Female AA Legislators yesterday, made me consider even more that there is some opportunity to offer greater inclusion to women of color.
This bill yesterday is symbolic to be sure, but it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It comes off as a Legislative version of an advisory referendum designed to do something outside of what it might intend. Guess we’ll see if it does.
Comment by A guy Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 4:20 pm
–Actually I did. Go back and look it up.–
Tried Guy, no luck. Little help? Or, you know, you could just write it now.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 4:38 pm
Really Guy? I am not terribly adept at searching Rich’s archives and haven’t been able to find it. Can you tell me which day you left that particular comment?
If not, just tell me which of the 24 words below you changed?
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
And no, I don’t think there could be a more specific request even with the 14th Amendment. Perhaps it is largely symbolic, which isn’t your point I know, but I think the symbolism is still relevant and important.
But it’s moot now.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 4:38 pm
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State to any human being on account of gender, creed, race, or any category of personal preference. Further, every reference to “man or men” in the Constitution shall be construed to include woman or women pertaining to rights included therein”.
I’d include language to assume legal status, be it citizenship, legal alien status, work visas, etc.
Comment by A guy Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 7:31 pm
Thanks Guy. And you think your changes would have increased the chances of passage previously? I’m not so sure. It seems to me that the Phyllis Schlaflys and Jeanne Ives of the world would find much more to gripe about in your version than they “found” in the version that finally passed.
But I do appreciate your answer. Sincerely.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 7:52 pm
You’re not wrong 47. My version wouldn’t be written to please Rep. Ives or Ms. Schlafly. It would try to more specifically deal with inequities that are more contemporary as our society has changed. I was struck very much by the AA Women Reps who spoke last night who pointed out correctly (in my view) that the ERA didn’t offer any real spelled out equity for them. Or Latina women. It certainly didn’t offer anything for the categories of persons who might face discrimination in our time. I don’t think the framers meant to deliberately not protect women. They were people of their time who didn’t envision 1850 or 1920, let alone 2018. Protecting their husbands and sons was likely seen as protecting them.
I’ve never understood why there wasn’t a new draft of what this amendment was attempting to do; rid our nation of any discrimination of any kind for any reason. They got it right; that every “person” was entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It just took too long for our free society to continue to adapt the principle. That’s on all of us.
Rep Mary Flowers made tremendous sense to me. What we were doing for anyone, we should achieve for everyone.
Government is good at a very short list of things because of it’s mere size. Institutionalizing decency and fairness is one of those things. In fact, I believe it’s the only entity that can do so large of a task. I want everything for my wife, my sisters, my daughters and granddaughters, that I want for myself, my brothers, my sons and my grandsons. Anyone who doesn’t really isn’t allowing their own legacy to thrive.
Appreciate your sincere response.
Comment by A guy Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 9:22 pm
Well said Guy. Thanks.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 10:04 pm