Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
I guess there may be some here who were not adults four years ago, or followed the news, or just are unabashed hypocrites, but that was for a vacancy in the Spring before a November presidential election. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Republicans are going to get whiplash changed directions so fast.
Click to expand...
I did hear that it is different for a president who is at the end of a second term and a president who is running for re-election.
 
I heard that Stacy Abrams is at the top of Biden’s list😳
 
Last edited:
7_Sorrows said:
I did hear that it is different for a president who is at the end of a second term and a president who is running for re-election.
Click to expand...
Yay! Always like to find a point to agree on.

I agree that it is different. Only at the time the Republicans did not make that distinction, did they?

I would be fine if the nomination is made, the motions are gone through, the hearings conducted, and, if Trump wins reelection and the Senate remains Republican, the full Senate vote is held after the election results are known.

I am less enthusiastic about a lame duck Senate confirming the pick of a lame duck President after the election.
 
Any view of the Constitution that justifies abortion is a disgrace to the Constitution.
 
She also advocated for legalizing sex with 12 year old children.
 
Yes, you could. Or you could say it was impressive Hitler was able to invade so many countries in a short amount of time and occupy them.

I was not a fan of Ginsburg’s rulings, but you cannot argue she did not have a successful legal career. It was also impressive how she fought 4 different types of cancer the last 3 or 4 decades and could have retired long ago due to illness, but didn’t. That takes courage.
@Maximian
 
Last edited:
I don’t say she didn’t have an impressive career. I say that that she successfully pursued an evil course and deserves no panegyrics.
 
There are many people who follow an evil course in today’s world that is why the world is such a mess!!
 
The USC at the time stated that sexual relations with a female under 16 was considered statutory rape. She wanted it changed to under 12. That is pretty cut and dried.
 
Please explain the difference. Under her proposed changes, if no threat, force, or drugs were involved, sex with a 12 year old would be legal, just like adults.
 
Last edited:
So she objected so strongly to the alleged sexism that she had to change the age in the statute, do you even believe that?
 
Last edited:
I do not care what you personally and subjectively believe. I care about the fact that she advocated for the legality of pedophilia and people are brushing it off as no big deal.

She wrote a paper arguing for the change in the age which has nothing to do with the sex of the victim and then lied about what she did as per the quote you helpfully provided. That is the cold, hard truth mate.
 
The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

I know that the political climate today lends itself to slander, but slanders against the dead is reprehensible.
 
Such is the nature of the internet. The thing is, even a lay understanding of law should make it clear what that USC code is used for, and it is most definitely not to allow pedophiles to molest teenagers. Quite the opposite is true. It is used to expand the language used in criminal law, by the states (it is a template, after all), to include the reality that teenage boys too can be molested. Texas law reads the same way, where certain crimes are defined as being directed at more severe crimes, with greater punishment. Statutory rape, as it used to be called, was never the same punishment level as aggravated sexual assault of a child. The point it, the gender of the child is not relevant. I applaud all those who saw the need for this to be gender neutral.

I did not mean to jump in on what you said, but since I know my own law, I thought I should give it a shot.
 
Last edited:
I suspect the British Empire was a bigger influence in spreading Cockney slang to other parts of the world including Ireland and the United States.
pnewton said:
The point it, the gender of the child is not relevant.
Click to expand...
So why the need to drastically lower the age of consent?
I applaud all those who saw the need for this to be gender neutral.
Click to expand...
Do you applaud those same people who also saw the need to lower age of statutory rape to under 12?
 
WingedHussar said:
So why the need to drastically lower the age of consent?
Click to expand...
It wasn’t. It isn’t. The law in question deals only with forcible rape. Having sex with a child under 12 is considered the same as sexual assault, that is, using force, even if there are no other considerations. the age alone is sufficient to qualify for that particular crime. There are other laws that deal with other underage indecency.

It is misunderstanding like this that has made “statutory rape” an increasingly obsolete term, as opposed to something like “indecency with a minor.”
 
pnewton said:
The law in question deals only with forcible rape. Having sex with a child under 12 is considered the same as sexual assault, that is, using force, even if there are no other considerations. the age alone is sufficient to qualify for that particular crime.
Click to expand...
Not under Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s proposed changes.
There are other laws that deal with other underage indecency.
Click to expand...
So keeping in mind RBG’s attempt to alter the age for statutory rape, please cite any other part of the USC that would have prohibited sex with a child of 12.
 
WingedHussar said:
So keeping in mind RBG’s attempt to alter the age for statutory rape,
Click to expand...
No. I told you I understand English (and the law) enough to know this is not true. It is fake rumor thrown around the internet like so many other lies. Any lawyer could understand this. Anyone will to read past extreme right propaganda could get this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top