Just a reminder, Ginsburg spent a long time in her legal career trying to get the age of consent lowered... to 13. She is either a pedophile herself, or else one of "their" foremost foot soldiers.
Why would someone, anyone be in favor of something like this? Or at least, what excuse do they use for pushing something so harmful and hurtful to a child?
I realize that for sure, but I'm curious as to what supposedly valid excuse does she (RBG) use for even suggesting this disgusting behavior much less pushing it judiciously.
"Children are more adult-like today";
"Children enjoy sex too";
"A thirteen year old's body is fully mature";
"Pedophilia is normal";
How could someone be comfortable with themselves while supporting this?
While I personally have not examined her legal record to the extent of having seen her arguments... she was a member of the ACLU. So she probably argued that not making sex with children legal violates some made up civil right.
She's personally a foot soldier, and then I think something that a lot of people overlook is that it allows for a lot of militant legal aids to be employed at her office.
"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)
From a government documentation of criticism of her stances during her confirmation process in the early 90s. This was her desired change from the 16-year-old line of consent, veiled under "changing the gender language" but also sneaking in a very large age change.
I have now established a positive: that is her stance with citation. Now you must prove that to be false. That's how facts work, bucko.
As far as I can tell from quick skimming, she might have used a proposed bill from possibly 1973 that seem to indirectly describe an age of consent of 13 as a positive example. Supposedly, the positive thing about that bill was that it used "gender-neutral pronouns". And that the current law, which she described negatively, indirectly described an age of consent of 16. I don't know whether that is true or not, but her describing a proposed bill including possibly an age of consent of 13 years as something positive is not exactly good. And it seems like a weird example for her to give. If that is how things are, wouldn't it have been very easy for her to pick a different bill as a "positive" example reg. "gender-neutral pronouns" which didn't indirectly describe an age of consent of 13? Why bring forth that proposed bill as a positive?
Yep. All she did was suggest that laws should use general neutral terms.... because, well, we have different laws like rape laws that don’t protect men as much as they protect women.... she used an example that happened to mention that age of consent. She wasn’t her self advocating for lowering consent . She was advocating for equal application of law between men and women
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 persons 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.
Why would she not choose some other example than one that promotes an age of consent of 12? Why would she prefer or be interested in such examples in the first place? Why not modify the example to be 16? Was she not bothered by the lowered age of consent in the example she picked? It seems very off. Was she trying to normalize such an idea? And/or hope that others following her writings as part of law proposals would simply copy-paste her example amidst all the many, many other proposals and suggestions?
From what I quickly skim, she has also recommended affirmative action in the past including mandating a certain percentage in various employments and companies having to be occupied by women, instead of having it be based on merit. Among many other aspects and issues.
I cannot help but wonder if she pretends to be "pro-women"/"feminist", and instead is against certain groups and kinds of girls and women.
But isn't it really weird of her to pick that example as a "positive" one? Couldn't she easily have picked a different law or proposed law than one that seems to advocate lowering the age of consent to 13 years of age? And I have not thoroughly checked that this is actually what happened, I only skimmed quickly.
Yes. She could have... but the point stands, she wasn’t speaking about endorsing a policy related to age of consent, she was speaking of gender neutral language that would apply to people equally.
But still, why would she pick such an example? Why would she not raise her eyes at such a law that seems to propose lowering the age of consent? Why include such an example? See also https://thedonald.win/p/GIgoJDDN/x/c/140JKBC2ND . And then there is her support for affirmative action, like requiring a percentage of certain employees to be women, etc., instead of picking the most qualified for the job.
Y don't get sent to a nursing home for an "infection". Its hospice care. On her last legs--which means they've kept her in care and out of sight for a year. Another fraud on the American people. They probably wanted to keep her going for another two months but they can't.
Sadly, I'm able to muster only so much energy for this news, even assuming a Supreme Court vacancy as of tomorrow. I mean, yea, in one sense in this environment, it would be like throwing a match upstream of China's Three Gorges dam, assuming the Yangtze was flowing pure gasoline.
But then, there's Romney, Collins and Murkowski. Romney would vote "No," on ANY Supreme Court nomination in front of the 2020 Election, because Romney is a cowardly weak mental midget that hates Trump and he's safe this election. Murkowski also votes "No," because she's essentially liberal and isn't up for reelection until Nov. 8, 2022.
That leaves Collins, as the required vote. Honestly, she was so abused at end of Kavanaugh hearings, that she may be amenable to new Big-9 nomination in front of the 2020 election, but then there's the Category 11 on a 5-point scale rioting the left will unleash in Maine. I wouldn't count out ANY means of preventing her voting in a Big-9 nomination before election, and I think the Left would figure something out or Collins would fold.
Ginsburg vacancy generally will greatly energize the Left, really to levels we haven't seen before, as impossible as that seems. Prolly better for Ginsburg to hold in there, Trump to win, and deal with this next year..... Just saying.
This is truth right here. Let her hold on until after the election, or we’re going to see a world of hurt coming towards us. This will incentive any demoralized liberal into action that Biden has been unable to muster enthusiasm in.
When the inevitable result finally occurs, it will be a circus of dysfunction the likes of which we have never seen. I will have popcorn and a Coke ready...
I honestly think there should be mandatory retirement around 80-85 for supreme Court justices. Get in sometime in your 50-60s put in 20-30 years, and retire.
On one hand, I think there should be a set term limit of years. On the other...election is already a circus over possible appointments. Cannot imagine what it would be like with definite flips on the line.
We have appointed senators up here in Canada and honestly no one cares, it never makes the news or campaigns. Same with our Supreme Court Justices. Why? I have no idea.
So if RBG took the dirt nap, would Trump have the balls to nominate someone before the election? The left wold be all reeeeeeeeeeee but muh Merrick Garland!
Wife is an Endo RN. She says bile duct is typically stented when there is a cancerous tumor in the pancreatic duct right next door. RBG has this stent. Wife says it could just be an infection in the bile duct, which antibiotics should clear, or stones or pancreatic cancer tumor is back. But wife doesn't know RBGs full health history.
Mark my words it will be within 1-2 months of it possibly the week before , they will kill her for the sympathy vote and make it about keeping evil right wingers from
Taking the court.
I hear there's a new Covid prophylactic treatment; it's called a pillow. Apply once over the face for about 3 minutes to prevent contraction of the virus.
Calm down Cuomo!
Lol
Cuomo can find Hera place with an opening, I’m sure of it!
Just a reminder, Ginsburg spent a long time in her legal career trying to get the age of consent lowered... to 13. She is either a pedophile herself, or else one of "their" foremost foot soldiers.
Why would someone, anyone be in favor of something like this? Or at least, what excuse do they use for pushing something so harmful and hurtful to a child?
They're evil. That's the real truth about all of this, that evil is real and they're it.
Kiddy Court
I realize that for sure, but I'm curious as to what supposedly valid excuse does she (RBG) use for even suggesting this disgusting behavior much less pushing it judiciously.
How could someone be comfortable with themselves while supporting this?
What does she do for a living again?
While I personally have not examined her legal record to the extent of having seen her arguments... she was a member of the ACLU. So she probably argued that not making sex with children legal violates some made up civil right.
She's personally a foot soldier, and then I think something that a lot of people overlook is that it allows for a lot of militant legal aids to be employed at her office.
Pretty sure that’s been debunked
I hadn't heard that, do tell.
Then show proof or gtfo
Hang on, that’s not how claims work. Where is the proof she tired to do this?
You can’t ask someone to prove a negative.
I want to see her gone years ago, but let’s not attack our own people for the reasonable position.
Okay how about you debunk this:
From a government documentation of criticism of her stances during her confirmation process in the early 90s. This was her desired change from the 16-year-old line of consent, veiled under "changing the gender language" but also sneaking in a very large age change.
I have now established a positive: that is her stance with citation. Now you must prove that to be false. That's how facts work, bucko.
Search engines are really easy to use. Go do it. Just don’t use Foogle
As far as I can tell from quick skimming, she might have used a proposed bill from possibly 1973 that seem to indirectly describe an age of consent of 13 as a positive example. Supposedly, the positive thing about that bill was that it used "gender-neutral pronouns". And that the current law, which she described negatively, indirectly described an age of consent of 16. I don't know whether that is true or not, but her describing a proposed bill including possibly an age of consent of 13 years as something positive is not exactly good. And it seems like a weird example for her to give. If that is how things are, wouldn't it have been very easy for her to pick a different bill as a "positive" example reg. "gender-neutral pronouns" which didn't indirectly describe an age of consent of 13? Why bring forth that proposed bill as a positive?
Yep. All she did was suggest that laws should use general neutral terms.... because, well, we have different laws like rape laws that don’t protect men as much as they protect women.... she used an example that happened to mention that age of consent. She wasn’t her self advocating for lowering consent . She was advocating for equal application of law between men and women
She writes it in a really weird way and the pick is really, really weird. See this:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002294216&view=1up&seq=116
Why would she not choose some other example than one that promotes an age of consent of 12? Why would she prefer or be interested in such examples in the first place? Why not modify the example to be 16? Was she not bothered by the lowered age of consent in the example she picked? It seems very off. Was she trying to normalize such an idea? And/or hope that others following her writings as part of law proposals would simply copy-paste her example amidst all the many, many other proposals and suggestions?
From what I quickly skim, she has also recommended affirmative action in the past including mandating a certain percentage in various employments and companies having to be occupied by women, instead of having it be based on merit. Among many other aspects and issues.
I cannot help but wonder if she pretends to be "pro-women"/"feminist", and instead is against certain groups and kinds of girls and women.
But isn't it really weird of her to pick that example as a "positive" one? Couldn't she easily have picked a different law or proposed law than one that seems to advocate lowering the age of consent to 13 years of age? And I have not thoroughly checked that this is actually what happened, I only skimmed quickly.
Yes. She could have... but the point stands, she wasn’t speaking about endorsing a policy related to age of consent, she was speaking of gender neutral language that would apply to people equally.
But still, why would she pick such an example? Why would she not raise her eyes at such a law that seems to propose lowering the age of consent? Why include such an example? See also https://thedonald.win/p/GIgoJDDN/x/c/140JKBC2ND . And then there is her support for affirmative action, like requiring a percentage of certain employees to be women, etc., instead of picking the most qualified for the job.
I’m not saying RBG is good in any way ... just saying her often cited “support of pedophilia” wasn’t actually that
She also wanted men and women to be in the same prison cells.
I hear they have lots of vacancies.
Y don't get sent to a nursing home for an "infection". Its hospice care. On her last legs--which means they've kept her in care and out of sight for a year. Another fraud on the American people. They probably wanted to keep her going for another two months but they can't.
I'm betting dead within a week. Maybe tomorrow.
How ironic this was right after they finished ruling on a bunch of cases.
Doubt she had anything to do with those recent decisions.
Well if they put her on a ventilator they will get double the $$ from the government.
In NYC or Michigan.
She will be doing cross fit again next week.
Even if they have to string her up, Hillary style.
Weekend at Ruthie's!
Ha ha! She probably just pulled a hammy while deadlifting.
Sadly, I'm able to muster only so much energy for this news, even assuming a Supreme Court vacancy as of tomorrow. I mean, yea, in one sense in this environment, it would be like throwing a match upstream of China's Three Gorges dam, assuming the Yangtze was flowing pure gasoline.
But then, there's Romney, Collins and Murkowski. Romney would vote "No," on ANY Supreme Court nomination in front of the 2020 Election, because Romney is a cowardly weak mental midget that hates Trump and he's safe this election. Murkowski also votes "No," because she's essentially liberal and isn't up for reelection until Nov. 8, 2022.
That leaves Collins, as the required vote. Honestly, she was so abused at end of Kavanaugh hearings, that she may be amenable to new Big-9 nomination in front of the 2020 election, but then there's the Category 11 on a 5-point scale rioting the left will unleash in Maine. I wouldn't count out ANY means of preventing her voting in a Big-9 nomination before election, and I think the Left would figure something out or Collins would fold.
Ginsburg vacancy generally will greatly energize the Left, really to levels we haven't seen before, as impossible as that seems. Prolly better for Ginsburg to hold in there, Trump to win, and deal with this next year..... Just saying.
This is truth right here. Let her hold on until after the election, or we’re going to see a world of hurt coming towards us. This will incentive any demoralized liberal into action that Biden has been unable to muster enthusiasm in.
When the pio says resting comfortably that means she is on palliative medication..that's my concern.
They have a blended fetus drip IV going. She will make a full recovery
They will replace her with a lizard in a meat suit.
"Oil can..... oil..... can"
"Hydroxy... chloroquine... and zinc"
When the inevitable result finally occurs, it will be a circus of dysfunction the likes of which we have never seen. I will have popcorn and a Coke ready...
Drinking dark soda is racist. You’re now only allowed to drink sprite. You understand, bigot?
r/waterniggas would like to have a word with you regarding the supreme drink of choice
No more brown pop!
Sent to a nursing home.... IN NEW YORK CITY!!!
GO DeBLASIO GO!!!
Time to change out the formaldehyde so she doesn't start stinkin up the court.
Let her live her life out peacefully. She is in a demolished state. She needs to step down if she actually cared about the constitution.
She doesn't even care about her own health.
I honestly think there should be mandatory retirement around 80-85 for supreme Court justices. Get in sometime in your 50-60s put in 20-30 years, and retire.
On one hand, I think there should be a set term limit of years. On the other...election is already a circus over possible appointments. Cannot imagine what it would be like with definite flips on the line.
We have appointed senators up here in Canada and honestly no one cares, it never makes the news or campaigns. Same with our Supreme Court Justices. Why? I have no idea.
🙏🙏🙏🙏 I want to open that tequila I've been saving to celebrate.
I've got an RBG bottle too! Can't wait for that old bag to kick it!
So if RBG took the dirt nap, would Trump have the balls to nominate someone before the election? The left wold be all reeeeeeeeeeee but muh Merrick Garland!
Kushner would fuck it up for sure.
No more unearned dynasties! I'm fine with Trump's kids running for office, but they have to earn their votes. Ivanka won't earn mine.
Eric seems like a good politician, but Don Jr would be like his dad in the arena.
Lmao she would have to run as a DEM.
He should nominate Rudy Giuliani and then go to war to get him confirmed.
Demote John Roberts, put Justice Thomas as Chief, and get the party started.
Giuliani is old though, when it comes to SCOTUS you want to play the long game.
Good point.
Maybe wunderkind Justice Walker, he's like what 19?
That'd be a fun confirmation brawl.
Please, RBG, don't die before the election. If we thought the left was insane now, it would be 100 times worse if it happened before the election.
Wife is an Endo RN. She says bile duct is typically stented when there is a cancerous tumor in the pancreatic duct right next door. RBG has this stent. Wife says it could just be an infection in the bile duct, which antibiotics should clear, or stones or pancreatic cancer tumor is back. But wife doesn't know RBGs full health history.
She’s gonna die right before the election......
Mark my words it will be within 1-2 months of it possibly the week before , they will kill her for the sympathy vote and make it about keeping evil right wingers from Taking the court.
Or a glue factory
Only if it’s in New York!
A nursing home in new York. Run by Cuomo.
How many times has she been hospitalized since Trump took office?? I lost count
Hope she has or contracts covid and refuses hydrocopsowkdjxnfnean
What is the NY Nursing-Home Body Bounty on a Covid-Pos Supreme Court Justice? Gotta be more than $3200 right?
Let's just give her the same health care that she has been offering all of those "inconvenient" pre-born children all these years...
I hear there's a new Covid prophylactic treatment; it's called a pillow. Apply once over the face for about 3 minutes to prevent contraction of the virus.
Prove she is alive. I haven't seen her in years!
Cut out the nursing home and send her directly to the morgue
*in New York
Whatever you do Ruth don’t let them give you Plaquenil or steroid treatment for your cough early on wait until your on a ventilator
No worries! She'll be up and doing home aerobics in no time like a spry 65 year old!
Bsod - hit reset
Sent to a nursing home with Obama's son and some covid patients.
May she be raped by Hitler in hell for all eternity...
Shallow grave
A nursing home in New York.
Yeah right... the bitch has been dead.
This is a ruse.
Can you imagine the SALT AVALANCHE if she....um...could no longer perform her duties, and was replaced by a Trump nominee before the election?
I pray that sand bag dies and Trump gets another pick
*New York Nursing Home
Only if it's in New York.
Long and painful or a quick death. Can't decide what I wish for her.
Send her back to hell!