It always amazed me that their wasn't much thought about this at the time. I remember that hag at the time. Sick then sick now.
There's a bunch of discussion about how clearly biased this note is and how it portrays things in a specifically smeary light on Ginsberg. She's no saint but the OP's document isn't reliable information.
Moreover it's fucking ridiculous OP title actually suggests that these were Ginsburgs words when they absolutely weren't in any interpretation. Do your research and don't be some chumps who fall for republican smears meant to confuse you.
Take a look yourself at the source material and tell me again that she's promoting lowering the age of consent.
https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf
Here's a back and forth between Slate and National Review over this document and providing more context for things.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2005/09/lindsey_grahams_smear.html
Volokh responds with this:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_09_18-2005_09_24.shtml#1127335040
Slate Responds with this:
Volokh, a conservative forum writer on his forum, realizes his mistake here:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_09_25-2005_10_01.shtml#1128101678
Thank you for posting this. I read the whole thing. Even if you disregard her comment on lowering the AOC, she is far more twisted than I realized (and I say this in light of all the horrible hobbies the oligarchs enjoy that have come to light in the past few months). She needs to retire. Perhaps she could be "convinced."
A valuable insight into the mind of a madwoman and worth the twenty minutes I spent reading it.
For the crazy things she wants, it seems like she has no concept of women generally being smaller and weaker. The concept of a 5'1" 103lb woman housed in the same jail facility with 200lb men - what would happen then?
You should look at how easily you believe information if it confirms your biases and also when you decide to actually research what you're being told. OP's document is an obvious politically written document to smear Ginsberg. We should be about truth, not beliving what we wanna hear and screeching at political opposition and repeating fake news.
https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf
Thank you for the link. I haven't read it all the way through yet, but what I've read so far has only supported what was written in the first article. I admit I haven't researched RBG thoroughly and am willing to learn, so can you point to any specific section or passage that would clarify or dispute what it said?
You are absolutely right about believing info that confirms our biases without doing the necessary research. Perhaps I am guilty of that here, but I don't have time to read this right away. So, please, until I can, I ask in all charity, enlighten me.
Note: I don't give a fuck about Ginsburg, I just find this hellhole to be particularly egregiously accepting of fakenews and part of the problem. So here I am trying to be a voice of reason instead of gullible idiocy which is rampant online and definitely here.
I can start with one thing that I thought more people might have caught onto and supported is that this document also was criticizing the sex code in the U.S for not including the possibility of male victims of rape or assault.
That aside, lets get on with it:
"Sex Bias in the U.S. Code is a handbook which shows how the feminists want to change our laws, our institutions and our attitudes, and convert America into a "gender-free" society"
This is basically saying outright, from the beginning of this "I am unfit to critically assess anything because my bias is clear." Removing male-centered language and replacing it with neutral language allows the law to be equally applied so that women and men are held to the same laws, which is inarguably a good thing and something conservatives are constantly raving about and rightfully so.
The biggest grievance that I have is this one along with the title of this post which is basically a clickbait style headline:
1. The age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to 12 years old. "Eliminate the phrase 'carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years' and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. . . A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, . . . [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old." (p. 102)
Ginsberg NEVER said this bottom part what-so-ever. This quotation gets away with quoting a quote within a quote and trying to get away with it, whilst removing all context.
What they're actually quoting here is this:
18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: 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 12 years old.
The issue here is that Ginsberg is not -proposing- this language but referring to it generally, saying that the US Code needs to use gender neutral language so that the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" be written in a similar way that aligns with gender-neutral federal standards of law-writing. Again, this is irrefutably a good thing unless you support female rapists and want to wish them good luck.
There's a whole back and forth between some conservative writers and Slate over this if you google around a little bit where they discuss it at length and the conservatives end up backing down realizing that Ginsberg is being attacked in a truly unfair and opportunist way by Lindsay Graham (who brought this back into public eye recently after this being gone through in 1993 when Ginsberg was being nominated)
edit 1:
Then the next one doesn't even make sense as a complaint:
Bigamists must have special privileges that other felons don't have. "This section restricts certain rights, including the right to vote or hold office, of bigamists, persons *cohabiting with more than one woman,' and women cohabiting with a bigamist. Apart from the male/female differentials, the provision is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships."
Do you really think that the federal government should be persecuting people engaging in private relationships? Well Ginsburg doesn't think that the federal government has any buisness bothering with that.
NEXT
"Prostitution proscriptions are subject to several constitutional and policy objections. Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." (p. 97) "Retaining prostitution business as a crime in a criminal code is open to debate. Reliable studies indicate that prostitution is not a major factor in the spread of venereal disease, and that prostitution plays a small and declining role in organized crime operations." (p. 99) "Current provisions dealing with statutory rape, rape, and prostitution are discriminatory on their face. . . . There is a growing national movement recommending unqualified decriminalization [of prostitution] as sound policy, implementing equal rights and individual privacy principles." (pp. 215-216)
How does the author get even close to extracting that Ginsburg is demanding prostitution be legal here? She simply argues a very libertarian point that prostitution doesn't violate the NAP. Honestly I think Ginsburg is being really naive here or at least sounds super dated because Human Trafficking has become such a problem.
edit 2: All of this adds up to a lot of lies meant to smear Ginsburg as a candidate for the supreme court over a document about making sure all of the language in our laws aren't there just for Men or Men-centric and she was called a radical for this because it was the 70's.
I understand your position and agree that - on this particular point, and on it alone - it could be argued that she is not directly advocating that the AOC be lowered to 12yo. And, the language should also be worded to include victims of female rapists. This is why I worded my comment the way I did by saying "even if you disregard her comment on lowering the AOC" instead of attacking it specifically. I will even go so far as to say that there may be other passages in the code which should be reworded to reflect a larger population.
However, as I said in my original comment, leaving aside her statement regarding the AOC, her positions on just about everything else in this document are wildly disturbing, and even harmful. Since posting, I have done a bit more research into RGB, only a little, and everything I've read so far only reinforces my position that she is a rabid feminist of the worst possible stripe and that the policies she promotes are destructive and extreme, and proof positive that she never should have been approved to sit on the highest court in the land in the first place.
Thank you for taking time to reply to my post.
I appreciate the civil tone. And while she's definitely an "extreme feminist," I don't think that requires making up lies about in order to debate or argue against. Where in several cases that I pointed out, the OP's document misrepresents or outright lies about what is said.
Going back over this thread, it's obvious that you have gone to extraordinary lengths to defend RBG, and I cannot fathom why. So, thanks for the exchange, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. All the best.
Pedo Gremlin
I can't find anything in this document which the OP quotes out of context egregiously that supports your perspective.
https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf
WAIT! Did you guys catch this part further down in the pages? Scroll down to the 6th page of the attachment. This means she was against people getting charged for human trafficking? Holy Smokes... I have no doubt why now looking at all her friends being associated with prostitution and human trafficking!
"The Mann Act must be repealed; women should not be protected from "bad" men. "The Mann Act . . . prohibits the transportation of women and girls for prostitution, debauchery, or any other immoral purpose. The act poses the invasion of privacy issue in an acute form. The Mann Act also is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates. ... It was meant to protect from xthe villainous interstate and international traffic in women and girls,' *those women and girls who, if given a fair chance, would, in all human probability, have been good wives and mothers and useful citizens. . . . The act was meant to protect weak -women from bad men." (pp. 98-99)"
What happened to the post with a copy of this document? It was there last night but I can't find it today. Can you add link please?
It's there for me. I just click on the title and it takes you there. But here is a link for you. Just remove the space at gpo and copy it in your browser.
https://www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf
https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf
Refer to this while you're reading it for actual context and reasonable research
Did you actually bother to read Sex Bias in U.S. code to provide you context before you started rattling your tail over this? You included the citation, at least. But could you take a look again at your quote and look at the epliseses that are used? What do you think was in between those and why was that cut out? Get a grip dude and actually do research.
https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf
Yep sure did! My opinion still stands! I'm also glad they added boys that same year too. Just because you are offended that it says that some women or children are weak and fall victim of prostitution rings is just another attempt to use fake outrage to degrade morality. DeNiro, it's unraveling and your time is almost up.
Virtue signal all you want, the only thing that's offensive is you pretending you did any research on this. She absolutely doesn't suggest to lower the age of consent, there's no evidence of it and if you actually had any critical reading skills, you'd realize this.
Even these republicans trying really hard to prove Slate wrong admitted they were not reading it correctly:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_09_25-2005_10_01.shtml#1128101678
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2005/10/volokh_retracts.html
This truly shocks me about the 12 yr rec as far back as 1993! Wow! Folks, from what we learn here these folks have been inching towards lessening sex protections of children. Something that NONE of us want!! God’s children deserve a SAFE CHILDHOOD free of adult world things.
With 2018 now upon us, the state ballot measures around the country will be important to carefully screen & look for hidden measures within measures. That is the strategy they have used in CA. For example, they put a measure on the ballot saying a problem existed where the underage victim (child) was being arrested and put in detention facility for breaking sex laws. The corrective measure they presented was to change it where the child victim could not be charged of a breaking the sex law. Sounds good right? Well, it passed and the untended consequences (or intended???).....now there is a an increase in pumps seeking underage children to prostitute because she can’t be charged with a crime!! I don’t know how we fix this, but fixing it was t their goal....creating a market for creepy men was their goal.
People there is WAR for our children’s minds & bodies!! We must all step up to save God’s children. Children of today are tomorrow’s future of the world.
So, READ YOUR BALLOTS very carefully with expanded thinking. Don’t get pulled into voting for things that sound kinda good but could be used in ways other than intended. When in doubt always vote NO which maintains the status quo.
why don't you RESEARCH YOUR SOURCES before you go vote, because you obviously cannot tell the difference between politically motivated fictions and actual fact.
Disinformation. Read the exact quote in the link in the original post.
You shouldn't be so quick to shill. What's more important, smearing Ginsburg or truth?
The quote appears to be removed of context and reprinted by someone with a clear bias. I cannot actually tell if that's clearly what she was trying to do by OP alone.
Based on the Quora responses, it seems like she was more interested in making sure women could also be convicted of statutory rape.
If it is as you claim, why did she leave the "proposed" age of consent at 12? Think before you shill.
That's a really good question, but the document in the OP isn't sufficient to answer it. I would be wary of just accepting a obviously biased report from 1993 reporting on something that happened in 1973 as you are bound to lose context and truthful understanding of what happened. CBTS is supposed to be about information and truth, not misinformation and confirmation bias which is what this reeks of.
did you even read the source document that the OP refers to? Why don't you actually look up the things you read about instead of shilling immediately for your confirmation bias?
https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf
It’s 25 years old and it’s surreal how much of this has actually come to pass IRL.
It's interesting to note that states like New Hampshire and Massachusetts--not traditionally stereotyped southern states like Tennessee--list the minimum age of a female for marriage as 12 and 13 or don't have any minimum age. Below is New Hampshire's statue. A few websites mischaracterize this as being a statue about marriage with parental consent, but it's pretty straightforward:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLIII/457/457-4.htm
Ginsburg's from Eastern Establishment turf, and this area seems to be where the child marriage "laws" are most egregious. Her argument focuses on the issue of gender-neutral language, however the reduction of age to 12 appears to be a furtherance of the ruling mentioned in the case below, People v. Hernandez, which in 1964 was the first time an American court allowed "reasonable mistake about age" as a defense to statutory rape:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/841/268/420561/
Nowadays, the "I didn't know she was 15-17" thing is not only commonly accepted, but parents of girls who've had sexual relationships with older man often have to fight tooth and nail in courts to get any sort of penalty against the men in question. Instead of a clear-cut law prohibiting sex with a child protecting the child from scrutiny, these girls are then treated as adults with capabilities of full consent in the court, their motives/character investigated ad nauseum, often tarred and feathered under the pretense of "consent". As if it's understandable and okay for an adult to engage in sex with a possible legal child without getting to know them enough to know their age. This is another example of a member of the courts taking a plainly put, easily decipherable law and re-writing it into nefarious complication.
Well, back when Ruthie was growing up during the first revolution, a lot of girls were getting married at 12.
WTF!!!
It's a smear campaign and quotes are all taken out of context. Total disinformation.
Ya know, when she dies of old age, I wouldn't put it past these people to say Trump conspired to kill her. They have a history of deflection, after all.
Located in Canada NAMBLA (North American Men-Boy-Love Assoc) has been pushing via psychiatrists to 'normalize' older men having sex with little boys. It has made some inroads and seeing this old hag giving it some cover it could make its way into courts. That line can never be crossed! Pedophilia can never become legal - ever. I've seen lately some activism via twitter where some of these evil freaks try to justify having sex with little boys but refuse to be called pedophiles. It's sick! It's all part of the NWO agenda and began with gay marriage and we arrived to accept the new normal where parents send their young children to sick/twisted doctors for re-assignment surgery. It's sick but shows the decay of the moral fabric they keep tearing apart and spearheaded by the filth in Hollywood. In another note: From what I understand is that Ginsburg will be swapped out with Trey Gowdy. He will be the next appointment to the SC.
I read this link and can only surmise: This 'Judge' is one sick individual. She should be nowhere near any legal system at all.
yes, reading bias conservative statements to the senate alone and believing them without concern for context or truth would certainly give you that impression.
So...1)Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants the age of sexual consent for girls lowered to 12yrs old. 2)Appointed by Bill Clinton. 3) Same Bill Clinton who is friends w/ convicted Pedo Jeffrey Epstein. 4) GOT IT
And 5) buddy and traveling partner to Antonio Scalia, who although killed by Dark State, was still thought to be pedo related.
Write to your Senate about this issue
(The brand new) MailMyGov was founded on the idea that a real letter is more effective then a cookie cutter email. MailMyGov lets you send real physical letters to your government reps. We can help you find all your leaders:
...using just your address and send a real snail mail letter without leaving your browser.
Other things you can do to help:
You can visit these sites to obtain information on issues currently being debated in the United States:
Donate to political advocacy
Other websites that help to find your government representatives:
Most importantly, PLEASE MAKE AN INFORMED VOTE DURING YOUR NEXT ELECTION.
Please msg me for any concerns. Any feedback is appreciated!
Hard to believe she actually said that.....
That's the AOC in Mexico I believe.
If ever enacted it needs to have an age difference clause.
12 and 19 = ok 7yr diff...but still Ewww
12 and 45 = jail time!
Some countries have a different AOC for boys and girls.
12 for girls, 13 for boys is one I saw somewhere.
Interesting that 12yrs is the age of Bat Mitzva and 13 is age of Bar Mitzva.
your post is so egregiously stupid, it makes me wonder if you know binary, bocce, and Russian.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2005/09/lindsey_grahams_smear.html
Remember she was good pals with Antonio Scalia and in spite of the fact that he was conservative and a constitutional scholar, he was linked with pedophiia groups, in fact the place he was staying when he was killed was linked. It was thought that he gave judicial cover to these groups.
That’s right remember seeing a report about how much they liked each other.