It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RUTH B. GINSBURG says She is Staying on the Supreme Court to age 90...At Least.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Do we know who will be replacing Anthony yet?




posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

She could go on a retreat and be Scalia'd.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I was just trying to get to the bottom of this, but I can't find the S. 1400 Criminal Reform Act, which she references.

Ginsburg brings up U.S. Code §2031 from 1948; carnal knowledge of female under 16, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It seems to me that the part about 12 as age of consent is copied directly from s. 1400. If this is true then it seems hypocritical to call out Ginsburg for simply quoting or even endorsing an act that had already been passed by the 93rd Congress! Furthermore, it's unclear whether she is endorsing 12 as age of consent, or if she simply wants to use the language of that paragraph as a model.

But this also confuses me a little bit; §2031 is specifically about statutory rape. It pretty much only says that you can't have sex with a female under 16, unless she is your wife. Ginsburg recommends that the whole law should be rewritten from scratch. Her template for the new text tries to define all ways you can rape someone; force, coercion, drugging. And also it mentions statutory rape, but in this case the age is 12 and not 16.

So, based on this I can't say what Ginsburg wants the age of consent to be. But if we take her words literally, we can see that she does not advocate for using the content of S. 1400 §1633, she wants to use it as a template; "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" This interpretation would make sense in the context of the whole book or report. It's all about making the law's letter neutral to gender.

I'll also note that Susan Hirschmann's testimony seems very biased; she cuts away the most relevant part of the text to make it look like lowering age of consent was the original purpose. Very dishonest!

The most we can glean from this is that Ginsburg might have approved of age of consent 12 in the context of that particular law. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if she had or has radical opinions about age of consent, I don't know what the climate was like back then in feminist or progressive circles. Personally I think some of the recommendations from that report are foolish, such as forcing the military to let women serve in combat.

But as I said I couldn't find the paragraph online, and I can't and won't go to a library that has it. This is important because that paragraph may be some sort of special case, maybe stipulating a harsher punishment for those who rape children under 12, while there may be another paragraph in the same act, or some earlier act, that puts the general age of consent at higher than 12. Actually I'm almost certain that in 1973 the age of consent was higher than 12 in all states. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that congress would suddenly pass an act lowering age of consent to twelve. Where is the outcry over that, if it happened? Of course it did not. My point is that Ginsburgs statement is taken out of context.

But a few pages earlier, the report states as follows:


Under 18 U.S.C. §§1153 and 2032, it is a crime for a person to have carnal knowledge of a female not his wife who has not reached 16 years of age. "Rape" is defined in 10 U.S.C. §920 in the traditional manner as: "Any person...who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force or without her consent, is guilty of rape." The "statutory rape" offense is defined in these sections in much the same way: the victim must be a female and the offender a male, with the current penalty of 15 years imprisonment for a first offense. These provisions clearly fail to comply with the equal rights principle. They fail to recognize that women of all ages are not the only targets of sexual assault; men and boys can also be the victims of rape. In the case of statutory rape, the immaturity and vulunerability [sic] of young people of both sexes could be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions. The Model Penal Code and S. 1400 §1633 require a substantial age differential between the offender and victim, thus declaring criminal only those situations in which overbearing or coercion may play a part.


Possibly Ginsburg believes that consent should be based on the age difference more than a set age limit? I don't know, this too is speculation. I have heard about some dumb cases where minors are charged with possession of child porn for sexting each other. But I don't see any evidence that Ginsburg thinks, for example, that a 16 year old should be allowed to have intercourse with a 12 year old. It's a little sketchy, I'll give you that. In hindsight Ginsburg should have made it perfectly clear if she didn't approve of such a young age of consent. Back then there wasn't a bunch of autists on the internet analyzing every word, and society didn't care that much about these issues. From what I've heard.

One more thing, hah; I'm sure someone has brought this up already in the Q-threads, or somewhere else, but those special maritime and territorial jurisdiction laws apply not only to boats but also to airplanes:


(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.


So if I was a Q-knight I'd accuse her of trying to sneak in age 12 consent into the maritime law to make a loophole for a Lolita Express.
edit on 28-6-2018 by Cutepants because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
There is no guarantee she will live to 90. Sometimes life has other plans.

Look for some recent pictures of Ginsburg. I doubt she has another 5 years left. I'm betting perhaps 1 year.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I think her ruling on the elderly having lawns that everyone gets off of and mandatory turn signals on at all times was key to Constitutional justice.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Conservatives here do realize the liberals would unbalance SCOTUS in a heartbeat, given the chance?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have 9 actual Constitutionalists as justices!
edit on 28/6/2018 by Lab4Us because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Conservatives here do realize the liberals would unbalance SCOTUS in a heartbeat, given the chance?



Yeah. We'd have the 2nd Amendment gone faster than a three-cheese pizza at Michael Moore's house.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: carewemust

*snip*

That being said, some cloaked gentleman with a scythe might make the retirement decision for her.


The interesting thing about that observation is that "gentlman" might visit anyone at any time, eh?

Just ask Justice Scalia.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Conservatives here do realize the liberals would unbalance SCOTUS in a heartbeat, given the chance?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have 9 actual Constitutionalists as justices!


Which is why it is wrong and anti-American to politicize the appointment process to SCOTUS as was done in 2016 by Senator McConnell.

Now, unless he wants to present to the American people that he is the clear partisan scumbag that he is ... he should follow his own rule and wait until after the November election ... so the People can have their say.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Don't old people occasionally sleep with pillow on their face like Scalia did so Obama could nominate a liberal Justice?



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   
2 things


1 her obvious and out spoke politically motivated rulings have nothing to do with the constitution

And I have this really funny feeling she won't last that long

Not sure what it is but its a feeling



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
2 things


1 her obvious and out spoke politically motivated rulings have nothing to do with the constitution

And I have this really funny feeling she won't last that long

Not sure what it is but its a feeling


That "feeling" is what they call wishful thinking.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The democrat progressives are stupid.

its the supreme court stupid!

That issue ALONE should have had the Bernie followers ardently supporting Hillary

If they run howdy doodie this time they have to get out and support him, AS THEY SHOULD HAVE SUPPORTED HILLARY, just as a defense mechanism against crazy and evil right-wing nutjob Trump and his band of cult followers.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Don't forget the paycheck Jill Stein allegedly recieved as well.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

no I'm not wishing her to die you assume that because of how partisan you are, it would do you a service and everyone on these boards start asking questions before assuming what other members are implying
edit on 28-6-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I'm no cult follower and your words or quite incendiary. I think Trumps doing a fine job considering those people that are seeking to remove him from power dictatorially. I just hope the Democrats remember these days when their next president is treated this way.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Conservatives here do realize the liberals would unbalance SCOTUS in a heartbeat, given the chance?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have 9 actual Constitutionalists as justices!


If Hillary had won, we'd probably be staring at an imminent 6-3 liberal majority right now and most of the people worried about balance right now would be nowhere to be found. The Dems have been using the courts as political tools for years and were chomping at the bit to have control of the Supreme Court in order to stomp out conservatism once and for all.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Life expectancy for a white female in Washington DC is 86.65 years...
www.worldlifeexpectancy.com...

She'll have to beat the odds to make this 90 year thing happen.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

She, Ralph Nadir and Susan Sarandon, and Bernie, these elitist progressives all millionaires btw, maybe not Stein unless she stole the recount money, you never know.
These elitist progressives will never have to worry about their health insurance, or getting kicked out or not let into the country.
Yet, they constantly throw elections to GOP madmen and cause misery.

Then they justify their actions with

"I'm tired of the lesser of two evils" BS rhetoric


To me, their political dogma is as pernicious as the Taliban, as far as I'm concerned.

It's only they who will cause the loss of gaining the house by going too radical



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Conservatives here do realize the liberals would unbalance SCOTUS in a heartbeat, given the chance?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have 9 actual Constitutionalists as justices!


If Hillary had won, we'd probably be staring at an imminent 6-3 liberal majority right now and most of the people worried about balance right now would be nowhere to be found. The Dems have been using the courts as political tools for years and were chomping at the bit to have control of the Supreme Court in order to stomp out conservatism once and for all.


That's why Obama tried to be fair by choosing a moderate to replace Scalia.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join