If Middle East troubles, escalating gas prices, and an unpopular president doesn't provoke a '70s deja vu, then perhaps the return of the Equal Rights Amendment, which has been reborn as the Women's Equality Act, will. "Elections have consequences," Barbara Boxer proclaimed at a news conference touting the amendment's return, "and isn't it true those consequences are good right now?" Well, no, not from my perspective. But who could gainsay the first half of Boxer's comment. Elections most certainly do have consequences. The consequence of ERA's return, I predict, will be increased fundraising from interested parties on both sides, not an actual change in the Constitution. And if it does change the Constitution, judges, not women, will be the beneficiaries. "All amendments generate litigation, but the ERA's purpose is to generate litigation," George Will writes. "It is a device to get courts to impose social policies that supporters of the policies cannot persuade legislatures to enact. ERA--now WEA--supporters, being politically lazy, prefer the shortcut of litigation to the patient politics necessary to pass legislation." Some ideas are so bad that they deserve a second act, if only for entertainment purposes. Twelve years out of the majority, and the freshest idea that Senators Boxer and Kennedy can come up with is this lame, retread amendment?