In 1977, a prominent feminist lawyer, now a member of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the “age of consent” for sexual acts should be lowered to the age of 12.
The answers are true or false? Why? Did this happen or not?
No, it didn't happen.
Ginsburg coauthored a booklet about sex bias (mostly regarding language) in US laws. Some of it quoted laws and demonstrated how the passages could be made gender neutral, or how they were examples that were already gender neutral. One of the examples quoted from a *proposed* law (that was never enacted) and included the sentence about changing the age of consent to 12.
That sentence has been taken totally out of context, and has been claimed to be something that Ginsburg proposed. She did not, which is very evident if you follow from the linked government publication (which is simply someone's testimony to a Senate committee and is full of similar crap, in my opinion) back to Ginsburg's actual booklet, where you can see exactly how it was taken out of context and misused. (See my comments below for the link to that.) This is deliberate character assassination.
I see you did your homework. Thanks for clearing that up for me, I’m going to check out your links.
Hero of the left. What a shock.
Waaayy to easily taken out of context
Absolutely outrageous, and proof that her ridiculous opinions are not just the result of senility. She has always been this crazy!
tlaney, Ginsburg is NOT suggesting any such thing. ABSOLUTELY not.
In the course of demonstrating how to change the language of laws so that they are gender neutral, one example she used (which was of a proposed law that was not enacted) included a section about lowering the age of consent, that happened to have an example of wording she wanted to use.
That example has been taken out of context and twisted, and it has been said outright that she wanted the age of consent lowered to 12. She never said any such thing. (And seriously, do you really believe that she would? Come on.)
This has been used to smear her.
The name of her publication about sex-biased language in the law is "Sex Bias in the Law" and the entire publication can be found here: www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf
Susan, thanks for clearing that up! The official SoH Fact-Checker strikes again! 😃
Judge Roy Moore approved this message 😂😂😂
Bill Clinton is a rapist
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the first Clinton reference
I was thinking about this just a couple days ago.
SHE SHOULD STEP DOWN!
I would honest to God gladly trade Moores seat in the senate for her seat on the Supreme Court. A conservative on the "all powerful nine" that the democrats have abused for decades, can do a lot more good than a conservative in the "dysfunctional one hundred" that can't even do healthcare reform.
Why should she step down? This isn’t true.
The nature of the first conversation chain in this thread confirms my knowledge this is true. And I don't trust left wing sources attempting to hand wave away her insanity.
In any case she has fallen asleep several times on the bench in recent years, and is clearly on the mental decline. She's acted consistently in an improper manner, bashing candidate trump, taking firm policy stances, admitting her views take precedence to the constitution, and outright saying she hates our nations founding document! Inexcusable behavior all around.
She should have retired years ago, but I'm just thankful she was to stubborn to have left under Obama. By Gods grace there is no way she makes it to the end of trumps term. Since she's the left wing anchor of the court (heck even that is being kind, she's so far left she broke the scale!), when she's gone we will have a court that actually cares about the constitution for a generation!
Go read the government document being cited by the poll's author for yourself, then, and then be sure to follow it to the actual source of the quoted material.
The quoted material is *not* anything that was written by Ginsburg. It has been misquoted to make it appear as if she wrote it, but the way it has been used and prefaced, that's an outright lie. All she did with that sentence was use it as an example of pronouns. Good grief.
Did those words leave her lips?
But she was not expressing that sentiment. That's grossly out of context.
False. I just spent some time looking into this and it's not true.
Even the "factual government link" "straight from the Government Publishing Office" is just a reproduction of some person's testimony before a Senate committee, and doesn't prove diddly squat. It's just a person repeating OUT OF CONTEXT material.
The CONTEXT in which that one statement about age of consent was found had to do with something entirely different. Ginsburg's discussion was about GENDER PRONOUNS in legal language, and she used a piece of proposed legislation merely as an example of what she considered proper use of GENDER PRONOUNS.
She neither pointed out the age of consent in her discussion nor advocated for it.
Claiming that she suggested age of consent be lowered to 12 is simply and completely incorrect. After it's been pointed out why it's wrong, continuing to claim it's correct it is either willful ignorance, or at attempt at character smearing. But it's still incorrect.
Sorta like that "Hillary laughed at a child victim of rape who she was defending
(she was laughing about something else about the case, nothing that had to do with the girl at all)
"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."
From the source. She did not recommend that. The entire point of the article was to remove parts of laws that treated women differently.
The law had the age of consent for men at 12, but women at 16. So, due to the point of the article, she wants to equalize it by eliminating the specific reference to men and adding something "patterned after" the other part, which put the age of consent at 12 for men. Patterned after does not suggest that she wants for sure wants the number to remain at 12. The poll is misleading
Title 18, starts at page 101
Democrats and pedophilia are bed fellows, but they’re not universally ready to admit to it yet.
false, as is typical with your polls
In that same year of 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the “age of consent” for sexual acts should be lowered to the age of 12. In her book entitled “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code,” the future Supreme Court Justice also called for repealing laws against statutory rape, bigamy, prostitution, and sex trafficking because they perpetuate a stereotype that such laws are needed to “protect weak women from bad men.”
If you read your ENTIRE article SLATE claims it’s a typo...hahahaha that hasn’t been correct all these years?
read the slate article - she is quoting a Senate bill in that section that didn’t pass at the time. her standards are completely different which you’d understand had you done the slightest bit of research rather than just read your fake news theory.
if that’s what you took from the article you have a serious lack of comprehension - which makes sense given most of your polls
Here ya go STRAIGHT from the Government Publishing Office.
If you don’t like my polls, then don’t reply to them cry baby.
can’t read that email n my phone but will later - and i like pointing out your idiocy
Of course you can’t, you Liberals hate facts and choose to belittle anyone who presents them.
I’m a republican asshat. just from the thinking part you despise
Sticks and stones
you seem love your labels
For someone that can’t read my factual government link, you sure can read my replies quickly
it’s too small of my phone idiot - i’ll read it on laptop later
I’m at an airport just through security
More name calling, you’re really special. Grow up
Oh goody, pull out your laptop and read
i see - only you’re allowed to call others names
She did not WRITE that. She QUOTED that as an example of what she considered proper use of GENDER PRONOUNS. She was not claiming anything about age of consent in what she wrote, and there is no way to draw that conclusion from what she wrote. Her writing was about an entirely different purpose, and twisting it imply that SHE is the one who WROTE the material advocating for a 12-year-old age of consent is either misunderstanding what happened, or deliberately attempting to smear her intent.
pcisbs1 lacks the comprehension to understand what she’s linked to here and why it does not prove her point. if she went to the source document noted even in her link she would see that it was something Ginsburg quoted from a bill in the Senate to demonstrate proper use of gender pronouns. but that doesn’t support her thesis and is far too complex for her to understand.
I’m sorry have you read the article SusanR
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)
read the original doc - not a testimony quoting this and see the context. you are wrong but refuse to take your head out the sand.
If you're referring to the government publication that you linked to, I didn't read the entire thing, but I searched for instances of "12" and found the places where someone's testimony to a Senate committee attempted to imply that Ginsburg wrote that the legal age of consent should be changed to 12.
As I've stated pretty clearly in two places here, she did no such thing. She was writing about the use of gender-neutral pronouns in legal language, and was using that passage WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE as an example. Her use of it HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SUGGESTING A CHANGE IN THE AGE OF CONSENT.
As I've mentioned previously, the claim that Ginsburg advocated changing the age of consent is 100% bogus. This testimony is either another example of that or the root source of that idiocy.
The testimony in the government publication has some stuff cobbled together from Ginsburg's booklet "Sex Bias in the US Code." As you read through this in the government publication, you encounter this line on the page identified as 521 of the government publication, and is identified therein as being located on page 102 of Ginsberg's booklet.
"1. The age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to 12."
This line is underlined. This line is presented as if it is something that Ginsburg *wrote* and believed should become US law.
That is absolutely untrue. It is total 100% horse manure. And that line doesn't appear *anywhere* in Ginsburg's booklet. That line is what the person giving testimony *thinks* Ginsburg wants, or else wants *you* to think Ginsburg wants.
Did *you*, pcisbs1, go to the Ginsburg booklet and see what was in it?
You can look at the entire thing here: www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf
On page 102 (or you can just search for instances of "12") you'll find the pertinent paragraphs, and yes, it's the section that begins "Eliminate carnal knowledge..." blah blah blah and ends with "less than 12 years old."
But again, and for the last time (so for pete's sake, pleas pay attention), PLEASE NOTE THAT GINSBERG IS NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGES IN *LAW* HERE, AND CERTAINLY NOT ABOUT AGE-OF-CONSENT LAW.
The ONLY think her booklet addresses is GENDER-NEUTRAL ***LANGUAGE*** IN THE LAW.
She's only POINTING OUT good and bad usage of GENDER-NEUTRAL LANGUAGE. She's NOT SAYING TO LOWER THE AGE OF CONSENT. Is it possible to make that any clearer? And the underlined line in the government publication DOES NOT APPEAR IN HER BOOKLET.
you’re proving that you’re wrong. read page 102 and try and comprehend what it’s saying. they are quoting a section to demonstrate use of pronouns. that portion has nothing to with their recommendation beyond the use of gender related pronouns.
can you really not comprehend that? your continued lack of understanding is astounding. i can only believe that you are being purposefully obtuse.
Such big words from such a small minded person! Why are you so angry? Are you capable of having a reasonable debate without a vein popping out of your forhead?
yet another of your many mischaracterizations
most people don’t double and triple down when they are clearly incorrect.
You don’t know who you’re messing with do you little one?
i don’t know who you are any more than you know who i am. but i guarantee you that i’m not a ‘little one’. i do love how offended you are by names but never hesitate to throw them out yourself.
Are you still at it? Geez go lay down