TimS

Did one of the liberal Supreme Court Justices really suggest reducing age of consent to 12?

Rate this topic

72 posts in this topic

While trying to remove a multitude of links and references to inappropriate sites in the off the wall pizzagate thread, I found the following about a sitting Supreme Court Judge - and a quick Google search appears that it is factually accurate:

 

If this is, as a quick peek appears that it is - what kind of cesspool of politicians would approve the appointment of someone that thinks it should be perfectly legal for adults to be having sex with 12 year old children? Holy ****...how can we as a people allow pieces of garbage like this sit on the highest court in the land? I can't image what someone with such a broken sense of right/wrong would have to offer the Supreme Court :upck:

 

I'm sincerely hoping someone can tell me this isn't true and she never suggested this and Google is wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it come as any surprise it Clinton who nominated her? 

His buddy Epstein was likely very happy with this. 

 

Capture.JPG.e0c41c4ce740b74c3ba4f94ecb54dd85.JPG

Edited by J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would suspect the proposal is a stepped age of consent like they have in Holland - 12 yr olds can have sex with 12-14 year olds , 15 yr olds with 15-17 yr olds, over 18 can only have sex with over 18 year olds.

 

When my Dad lived in Holland, we went to the Zandervoort Grand Prix as guests of the Organisers. At the Dinner afterwards, the 14 year old daughter brought up the question to her mother of whether she should go on the Pill (legally).

 

Being 12 at the time I was mortified, but the entire table discussed it openly with both the daughter and mother. I don't remember the outcome - i was staring at my food....

 

but that made me realise that in that country, kids didn't have to sneak away and have unprotected sex without their parents knowledge. they could be educated, counselled and just as importantly safe in doing so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J said:

Does it come as any surprise it Clinton who nominated her? 

His buddy Epstein was likely very happy with this. 

 

Capture.JPG.e0c41c4ce740b74c3ba4f94ecb54dd85.JPG

 

Epstein is also a friend of Trumps - to quote " Jefferey likes them young too, younger than i do in fact".

 

and of course Trump was overhead saying " Wow, who is that ?????? - at a 14 year old Paris Hilton".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aquacide said:

i would suspect the proposal is a stepped age of consent like they have in Holland - 12 yr olds can have sex with 12-14 year olds , 15 yr olds with 15-17 yr olds, over 18 can only have sex with over 18 year olds.

 

When my Dad lived in Holland, we went to the Zandervoort Grand Prix as guests of the Organisers. At the Dinner afterwards, the 14 year old daughter brought up the question to her mother of whether she should go on the Pill (legally).

 

Being 12 at the time I was mortified, but the entire table discussed it openly with both the daughter and mother. I don't remember the outcome - i was staring at my food....

 

but that made me realise that in that country, kids didn't have to sneak away and have unprotected sex without their parents knowledge. they could be educated, counselled and just as importantly safe in doing so.

 

 

If you want to be like Holland I suggest you move there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gotcow? said:

If you want to be like Holland I suggest you move there.

 

thats off topic and personal. Tim ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Aquacide said:

i would suspect the proposal is a stepped age of consent like they have in Holland - 12 yr olds can...

 

 

 

 

What you suspect is meaningless. What are the facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now in NJ, if a 13 year old girl (8th grade?) wants to have sex with a 17 year old boy (HS Senior), that's ok.

 

But if two 12 year olds (7th graders) do the same, then both get charged with Statutory Rape, as neither is of consenting age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, charloots said:

What you suspect is meaningless. What are the facts?

 

no my suspicions are nearly always correct.

 

as they are again this time :

 

Quote

 Ginsburg and her coauthor argue that the law should be rewritten to outlaw sexual abuse of any minor, male or female, by any person who is significantly older, male or female (thereby obviating the absurd possibility that a 13-year-old boy would be prosecuted for seducing a 15-year-old girl). I would be very surprised if Sen. Graham disagreed with a word of this.

 

its called having a memory and an education ;)

Edited by Aquacide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aquacide said:

 

no my suspicions are nearly always correct.

 

as they are again this time :

 

 

its called having a memory and an education ;)

Then you should have just said so instead of suspecting.

 

Now then, what is your idea of a "significant" difference in age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimS said:

While trying to remove a multitude of links and references to inappropriate sites in the off the wall pizzagate thread, I found the following about a sitting Supreme Court Judge - and a quick Google search appears that it is factually accurate:

 

If this is, as a quick peek appears that it is - what kind of cesspool of politicians would approve the appointment of someone that thinks it should be perfectly legal for adults to be having sex with 12 year old children? Holy ****...how can we as a people allow pieces of garbage like this sit on the highest court in the land? I can't image what someone with such a broken sense of right/wrong would have to offer the Supreme Court :upck:

 

I'm sincerely hoping someone can tell me this isn't true and she never suggested this and Google is wrong.

 

 

I remember this highly controversial recommendation.

 

I added the red but not the bolded type to Volokh's post.
 
 
According to Volokh's in-context, in-depth analysis,  it is true that justice Ginsburg did support the recommendation of lowering the age  of consent to 12.
 
From Volokh's blog:
 
pageok
[Eugene Volokh, September 21, 2005 at 4:37pm] 
Justice Ginsburg's Past Endorsement of Lowering the Age of Consent to 12:

[UPDATE: Since posting this, I have concluded that Justice Ginsburg was likely the victim of a drafting error, and the report's critics, including me, themselves erred in not seeing the error. More here.]
Sen. Lindsey Graham recently said that Justice Ginsburg "represents the ACLU," "wants the age of consent to be 12," and "believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution." Timothy Noah (Slate's Chatterbox) calls this a "smear." Mr. Noah is far kinder to my earlier comments about the Ginsburg-age-of-consent matter, but still refers to them as "analytically faulty." He also faults "Edward Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center" for making the same "ridiculously distorted" "pro-pederasty accusation."

 

I've wanted to comment further on this ever since Mr. Noah's piece was called to my attention on Monday, but it took a day and a half for me to get the relevant source from the library. Now I have the data, and can say a few words about the issue, and about whether the charge is a "smear" or a legitimate allegation.

 

1. Justice Ginsburg is indeed on the record as having endorsed lowering the age of consent to 12. When she was a law professor at Columbia, she, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, former director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, and 15 law students put together a report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The report, released in 1977, gave as one of its "Recommendations" (p. 102):

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 report also said (p. 97) that "Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions" (citing the right-of-privacy cases), and urged that various federal prostitution statutes be "[r]epeal[ed]." This isn't precisely the same as saying that "there's a constitutional right to prostitution," because of the qualifier "arguably," but it's not that far off; the report wasn't merely impartially noting that this is one possible position, but seemingly endorsing it as the sounder position.

 

2. Was the quote, though, taken out of context? That, I take it, is the heart of Mr. Noah's argument. "Yes, the language Ginsburg quotes with approval puts the age of consent at 12, which does seem awfully young. But she isn't addressing herself to the age issue; she's addressing herself to the gender issue. Is her praise meant to constitute an endorsement of the entire bill? Of course not. Ginsburg makes this explicit in a footnote in which she complains that even this language 'retains use of the masculine pronoun to cover individuals of both sexes,' which at the very least is confusing if it's intended to outlaw statutory (and other) rape by women, too." (Here Mr. Noah is quoting from a 1974 version of this report; he didn't have a copy of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.)

 

Yet then-existing federal law set the age of consent at 16. If the Ginsburg report had only intended to make the law sex-neutral, it could have done so without suggesting a new age of consent, or endorsing a proposed federal bill that lowered the age of consent. Yet the Ginsburg report's proposal recommended the replacement of a sex-specific age of consent of 16 with a sex-neutral age of consent of 12. It seems to me quite fair, and not a "smear," to fault the report for suggesting this change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, charloots said:

 

 

Now then, what is your idea of a "significant" difference in age?

 

i think that most nations that have that legislation term it as above 2-3 years difference. but its a minefield - even 18 is too young for some girls.

 

as a youngster i knew shy socially awkward girls who had never kissed a boy at 18 who were probably vulnerable, but i also knew girls who got pregnant at 14 by boys of the same age as them. how do you legislate for both - in the UK it was 16 btw. i don't think you can really, do you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.