>>4627556 (Q)

Obviously, many of the things that she called for in her book have been implemented and are destroying our culture.

Some extra sauce:

TESTIMONY RE: RUTH BADER GINSBURG

by: Susan Hirschmann, Executive Director Eagle Forum

To the Senate Judiciary Committee

July 23, 1993

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf

First line of the testimony linked above:

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg's writings show her to be a radical, doctrinaire feminist, far out of the mainstream."

About the 12 year old age of consent:

If you are going to share the information about the legal age being reduced to 12 years old, you may want to mention, or refute the numerous debunking articles that have been written over the years. If you don't, you may lose credibility with the normies.

I find it suspicious that she argues to add "forcible sodomy", "pimping", "pandering", and "promoting prostitution" to U.S.C. Section 2044 (b) (7), but didn't think to make a comment, even in the footnotes, about the consensual age of 12.

Now, there is an argument that the law she was quoting with the age of 12 was talking about statutory rape between two minors, which was based on the age difference. I can't find the original law that she used as a template to verify that, though: S. 1400 Section 1633.

The main argument in her defense is that she is actually quoting one law in the beginning of her paragraph, and then a different law at the end as an example. The argument is that the second law had the age of 12 in it, and she just didn't change it. She was only focused on removing gender specific verbiage.

Again, she called out may other things in the book besides gender, so it's very fishy that she didn't make even a footnote about the age of 12 - regardless of whether the law was written for minors.

Here is a link to the book online @ page 102: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112068092359;view=1up;seq=110

Here are some of the articles refuting this. I am not endorsing them, I just think we need to understand both sides of the argument - especially when sharing this information with others. I omitted the snopes article…

Lindsey Graham’s Smear:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/09/lindsey-graham-s-smear.html

Lindsey Graham’s Smear Part 2:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/09/lindsey-graham-s-smear-part-2.html

Volokh Retracts - A second look persuades him that Ginsburg did not condone pedophilia:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/10/volokh-retracts.html