No. She didn't. That is a right wing lie. Pull your head out of your ass and prove it if its true. But you can't, because it isn't.
When the facts aren't on your side, attack and name call. Works every time doesnt it?
Again. Unless you are fluent in lawspeak, stop assuming meaning.
Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg Say that Pedophilia Was Good for Children? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-ruth-bader-ginsburg-say-that-pedophilia-was-good-for-children/
Has Justice Ginsburg stated that the age of consent should be 12?
https://www.quora.com/Has-Justice-Ginsburg-stated-that-the-age-of-consent-should-be-12
In Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, Ginsburg uses an example of a bill that was in front of Congress. Ginsburg did not write the bill, she did not support the bill, she was not in Congress, and she had nothing to do with it. The bill said:
A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."
So whoever wrote the bill—I can't find who that was, but it was someone in Congress, not Ginsburg—was suggesting lowering the age of consent to 12.
In Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, Ginsburg uses an example of a bill that was in front of Congress. Ginsburg did not write the bill, she did not support the bill, she was not in Congress, and she had nothing to do with it. The bill said:
A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."
So whoever wrote the bill—I can't find who that was, but it was someone in Congress, not Ginsburg—was suggesting lowering the age of consent to 12.
In Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, Ginsburg uses an example of a bill that was in front of Congress. Ginsburg did not write the bill, she did not support the bill, she was not in Congress, and she had nothing to do with it. The bill said:
A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."
So whoever wrote the bill—I can't find who that was, but it was someone in Congress, not Ginsburg—was suggesting lowering the age of consent to 12.
FALSE FALSE FALSE
In Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, Ginsburg uses an example of a bill that was in front of Congress. Ginsburg did not write the bill, she did not support the bill, she was not in Congress, and she had nothing to do with it. The bill said:
A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."
So whoever wrote the bill—I can't find who that was, but it was someone in Congress, not Ginsburg—was suggesting lowering the age of consent to 12.
And you dumbfucks on reading it if you did you'd realize what I'm saying is right but you don't want that do you? you want your fantasy to stay alive
And in it she used as an example a bill that somebody in Congress had written to describe something. She was not advocating for it stupid people. Wake up
In Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, Ginsburg uses an example of a bill that was in front of Congress. Ginsburg did not write the bill, she did not support the bill, she was not in Congress, and she had nothing to do with it. The bill said:
A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old."
So whoever wrote the bill—I can't find who that was, but it was someone in Congress, not Ginsburg—was suggesting lowering the age of consent to 12.
What I just posted to you is from quora from the same article.
You are all hopeless. Willful ignorance. Goodbye.
So now you're using a letter that somebody wrote to a committee In order to prove that she said it?
Enjoy staring at the blank screen for years, waiting for the show to start.
The entire Q storyline is based on feelings. The right wing think and act based on feelings and emotion, then turn around and accuse everyone else of it. They say emotional people hate trump. No. People hate trump because they have loads of facts about him that prove him to be a criminal and a complete bastard.
It is taken out of context. You are wrong. She never advocated for it.
Sorry dude. You won't see my face. I won't be appearing in any of your fucking dreams.
The topic she was writing about was not age of consent. She was writing about sex bias. In an explaining of something, she used a bill someone else wrote, in order to prove a point. I don't expect you idiots to understand Nuance like that, You are barely literate after all.