Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAckerman, Bruce
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:14.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:35:02Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:35:02Z
dc.date.issued2006-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/118
dc.identifier.citationBruce Ackerman, Interpreting the Women's Movement, 94 CALIF. L. REV. 1421 (2006).
dc.identifier.contextkey1369964
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/377
dc.description.abstractReva Siegel’s fine lecture is both illuminating and provocative. Illuminating: She convincingly establishes a striking parallelism between the doctrinal positions elaborated by the Supreme Court and those developed by the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in their struggle for ratification. As she explains, the women’s movement did not really lose the ERA—the big loser was Article V, which failed to register the movement’s triumph, and the big winner was the Supreme Court, which reinterpreted the Equal Protection Clause in a way that created a “de facto” ERA.
dc.titleInterpreting the Women's Movement
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:35:02Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/118
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Interpreting_the_Womens_Moveme ...
Size:
109.7Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record