So, the Argus Leader seems to be up to it’s old tricks by presenting as much information as possible from State Democrats, and leaving out critical information in support of the Republican their slanting their article against.
Today, the Argus has an article regarding the press release sent out yesterday from Attorney General Ravnsborg joining a lawsuit against the archivist of the United States to prevent the Equal Rights Amendment from being added to the US Constitution.
And you’re going to have to ice your neck after you read all of the biased spin coming from political reporter Lisa Kaczke, because she’s doing her best to twist the story into the “Republicans Bad” trope.
It mentions a couple of the points from the press release, and then makes sure it devotes plenty of space to pick up comments from two Democrats to beat up on the Attorney General:
In a statement on Thursday, South Dakota Democratic Party leaders said they were “shocked” by Ravnsborg’s lawsuit.
“It’s astounding that the same year we’re planning a celebration of 100 years of women having the right to vote, our state is spending taxpayer dollars to make sure the U.S. Constitution doesn’t include equal rights for women under the law,” said SDDP Vice Chair Nikki Gronli. “Here we are still fighting for equality in 2019.”
SDDP Chair Randy Seiler said he was also “flabbergasted” by the state wanting to spend taxpayer dollars on the lawsuit.
“I am appalled, frankly, at the lack of respect for women,” Seiler said. “Why is this administration taking this on? It makes no sense.”
The problem, and the Argus Leader’s sin of omission? One of the most important points in the entire argument, as related in the information presented originally in the AG’s release (emphasis added to note the parts the Argus skipped over):
In 1972, Congress proposed the ERA to the United States Constitution. The States were given seven years to ratify the ERA and make it a formal part of the Constitution. Ratification required three- fourths (38 out of 50) of the States to take place. Over the course of that seven-year period only thirty- five states had ratified the ERA. Prior to the end of the seven-year deadline, five of those states, South Dakota, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Tennessee, reconsidered and rescinded their ratifications.
Forty years later some States are now seeking to ratify the amendment by attempting to shortcut the proper, legal route to constitutional ratification. According to Ravnsborg this proposed process is flawed. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has recently stated that in order to be added to the Constitution the ERA would have to be put back into the “political hopper” and proponents would be required to restart the ratification process.
“The South Dakota Legislature ratified the ERA in 1973, but in 1979 passed Senate Joint Resolution 2 which required the ERA be ratified in the original time limit set by Congress or be rescinded. Because thirty-eight states failed to ratify the amendment by March 31, 1979 the South Dakota Legislature rescinded its ratification of the ERA,” said Ravnsborg. “It is the duty of the Attorney General to defend and support our Legislature. It would be a disservice to the citizens of South Dakota to ignore this obligation of my office.”
Before they started their bash-fest, The Argus included only an oblique reference to what took up most of the AG’s release with not even a full quote from the AG as to why the suit was being brought in the first place:
…However, the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t be amended by “procedural nuances” decades after the deadline to ratify the 1972 ERA…
For crying out loud! Do you think it might actually be worth more than a sentence to explain why the lawsuit is being filed? Or to give any thought to the fact that the constitutional amendment was not passed within the seven-year period given?
And that even a left-leaning member of the US Supreme Court noted that for the process to be legal, it would have to be started over?
Naah… Because it doesn’t fit the ‘Republicans bad’ narrative that the Argus is trying to sell papers with.
The AG is right on this one…just liberals whining…like Seiler who lost to the AG.
If you are a Republican and you subscribe to the Argus Liar you need to reconsider it.
Wait, are you implying that the Argus Leader writes stories with an obvious left leaning slant??? *GASP* Is that why I always feel like a confused dog with my head tilted to the side when I read about our “horrible corrupt state government” that the Argus watch dogs are warning me about? I’m sure journalistic professionals at the Argus Leader, being highly trained, reached out to the Attorney General for more information, wouldn’t they? I’m sure they have studied how government works at some point so that they would have a handle on how the Constitution is amended, right? I’m sure they are having serious heartburn over the fact that Justice Ginsburg has publicly said they can’t amend it this way, don’t ya think?
Or did they just have a few inches of fill space that they could allow Democrats to be appalled and shocked in and let Randy Seiler show once more that he would have never defended South Dakota if he would have been elected?
I am glad I voted for Jason
Randy is clearly just a liberal and out of touch with South Dakota
E— Everyday
R— Randy is
A— Arrogant
Sieler is still feeling the loss. No one else cares either way about this.
Ravnsvorg and Seiler are both in a 1% crowd on this.
Not once has the SDDP shared the KELO story about Kennedy Noem’s raise. Now that actually has people worked up.
I don’t care about that either but politically speaking it resonates. 1.5k shares on facebook and not one from the SDDP.
They lack any political savvy.
Randall continues to show he is a nitwit. Last week he was in promoting “common sense gun laws” gee Randall, 21,000 gun laws in America now, surely you can come up with one to fix everything! Now he is squealing about something that is obviously the correct legal option, take a break Randall, go back and hide in your hole. SD is in great shape with the current AG Ravnsborg and our US Attorney Ron Parsons, keep up the great work!
Such victimhood on your part here.
You do the same within the Republican party.
Ravnsborg should have kept it about the procedure and not rambled on to put his misogynistic views on display.
HUH? All the press release talks about is the rocedure….stop reading into it like the Heidelberger blog…..
Even Heidelberger said Ravnsborg was right.
No one said Ravnsborg was wrong. He just spoke about stuff that the lawsuit was not based on. What did any of that additional info he spoke about have to do with a lawsuit about procedure? Nothing. As I said before, he should have kept it about procedure and left the other comments out because that had nothing to do with it.
Where are you seeing this?
I don’t get it either what comments are you talking about what comments do you have a problem with?
I went and re-read the press release about 4 times and I don’t see any comments that can be read as misogynistic? With this kind of jumping to conclusions perhaps someone should take the keys for the internet away from you before you hurt yourself or others?
Question for ya Pat, and I do get that this isn’t directly related to the lawsuit. Would you support the ERA if it didn’t sunset? If there wasn’t a sunset clause on it and this lawsuit was a complete joke, and SD hadn’t yet ratified the ERA, would you support SD ratifying it?
Not pat, but the ERA Is procedurally and tremendously flawed…can you say mandatory funding of abortion?!
This strange young Lisa girl is rather odd, and makes even Mr. Ellis seem to be a real reporter. She is just a hack for a hack.
That Sioux Falls newspaper just keeps slowly rotting away.
Nothing slow about it.