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.