Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A relatively straightforward simple statute, that she wanted changed. Not dry at all, unless you consider the legality of sexual relations with 12 year old children to be on the same level as obscure judicial precedents.

Seeing as other posters here are calling slander, and making implications about understanding English and law, calling out perceived sarcasm seems a touch oversensitive.
 
Last edited:
Allowing me to spread my “slander” unimpeded.
 
Last edited:
I noticed that in the hearings today that Amy is wearing a Ruth B Ginsburg pin!
 
Last edited:
So right you are! And now having the option to set the time frame to “forever” has made CAF much more pleasant.
 
So why was the age changed in the proposed revision of the statute then? After all if there was no intent to change the age, why not just leave it at 16?
 
WingedHussar said:
So why was the age changed in the proposed revision of the statute then? After all if there was no intent to change the age, why not just leave it at 16?
Click to expand...
You might want to remember that Justice Ginsberg was not a legislator. If someone proposed a revision of a statute, you’d have to ask the legislator who proposed it.

One last time for those who don’t understand:
She was advocating a change from a legal presupposition that all perpetrators were male and all victims female – which is obviously untrue – to a more reasonable basis that perpetrators of sexual assault can be of either gender, as can their victims.

Now, if you want to argue that she was wrong about that, I suggest a new thread. I don’t think you’d get many takers on that idea, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top