Ruth Ginsburg Wants To Reduce The Age Of Consent To Twelve

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Where did Lindsey Graham pull that out of his ass?

[Missy M]

1. Is that in reference to abortion?

[Stand and Fight]

2. Oh Jeebus... Do the distortion and lies ever stop from them?

These people are so thoroughly beyond fucking disgusting.

[DanCa]

6. You would think that the law of averages would catch up to them some time.

[DanCa]

7. You would think that the law of averages would catch up to them some time.

[DanCa]

3. Speaking of hearts where is why dont Grahm use his?

[Rose Siding]

4. Next thing you know, he'll get all weepy about how polarized we are

[Fenris]

10. Tom Coburn: whiny little crybaby who sounds like Mr. Haney

[hopein08]

15. Jeff Sessions is much more like Mr. Haney....

It's so weird, I was just comparing the Republicans on the committee to "Green Acres" characters yesterday!

Coburn is quite applicable but Sessions is trying much harder to sell a load of crap to the American people that he doesn't even know anything about.

I think Coburn might be better suited for Mr. Kimball, especially after his heart-wrenching speech on the overabundance of partisanship.

[Modem Butterfly]

5. The age of consent in South Carolina is 14...

If I were Lindsay Graham, I would spend more time working on that than worrying about Justice Ginsburg...

[jbond56]

8. 12 year olds having kids is dangerous

at 12 giving birth is a very serious danger to the mother. Basically if the 12 year was going to have the baby they are very likely yo to die. So if the parents force the 12 year old to give birth they could also be forcing the twelve years old death.

[charlie]

13. The wingers are talking about the age of consent for sex

They've been touting this claim about Ginsburg for years.

[Seabiscuit]

9. Age of "consent" to go to war in Iraq?

Maybe this is Ninny Lindsy's way of avoiding a draft?

[klook]

11. From redstate.org...

Age of Consent By: mikewas

the age of sexual consent should be lowered to 12...
I'm no Ginsburg apologist, but now you're borking her. The full report is available online: http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20050608_Ginsburg2.pdf

The passage in question is on pp. 70 - 71 of the report (pp. 77 -78 of the PDF). Ginsburg merely discusses the gender neutrality of legislation then pending in the Congress, and does not argue for lowering the age. She states that the passage "conforms to the equity principle...." Certainly, that is an implicit endorsement of the bill as a whole, and her silence on the age of consent issue does raise a question as to her position on the matter, but nowhere does Ginsburg argue in favor of lowering the age of consent per se.

I looked up the source, and, sure enough, what Ginsburg and her co-author are arguing for is not reduction of the age of consent, but rather equal application of the law to males and females:

The "statutory rape" offense defined in these sections follows the traditional pattern: the victim must be a female and the offender, a male. Protection of a girl's virtue as an asset to be traded by her framily at marriage time can no longer survive as a justification for such provisions. The immaturity and vulnerability of young people of both sexes can be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions.

[T-Jeff_Dem]

12. Cites:

Red herring: yes -- but here is some info on what part of his colon Sen. Graham is pulling this stuff out of.

http://volokh.com/posts/1104181917.shtml

1 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Justice Ginsburg,

"AND THE AGE OF CONSENT: Several days ago, I ran across an allegation — one which has been repeated in quite a few places — that a 1977 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report, co-drafted by then-Professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg, suggested that the age of consent be lowered to 12. That struck me as a likely myth or an out-of-context quote, so I decided to look into it.

To my surprise, the allegation seems largely accurate, though in the limited context of the federal territorial and maritime jurisdiction. (The report was referring only to federal law, and most sex crimes are covered by state law rather than federal law.)" (more)
---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

"Ginsburg's co-authorship of a 1977 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report, titled Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, has continued to be a lightning rod of controversy for allegedly advocating that the age of consent be lowered to 12 in the federal territorial and maritime jurisdiction regarding statutory rape. In essence, this stance would make it legal for a man over 18 years of age to engage in sexual intercourse with a girl of 12 years. However, the specific intent of the paragraph in question, located on page 102 of the report, remains contentious."
---------------
Seems like a flimsy argument for Sen. Graham to base his case, but is that new news from these folks?

[klook]

14. Misleading

See my post above. The intent of the paragraph cited is not hard to discern. Ginsburg and her co-author, Brenda Feigen Fasteau, clearly stated that their concern was equal protection for male and female children, not decreased protection for girls and women.

As you say, Graham's is a flimsy argument, but when did Republicans ever let truth stand in the way of an argument?

Here's a link to the full Ginsburg/Fasteau report:
http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20050608_Ginsburg2.pdf
(FYI - this PDF file is just a scan of the typed original; you can't do text searches within it.)

[T-Jeff_Dem]

16. Just to be argumentative . . .

As you said, a close examination of the document shows that the intent of the section cited is a discussion of gender equity. That is all they appeared to be describing.

On the other hand, a spin doctor doesn't have to work to hard to see the following (years of watching KKKarl and his ilk have scrambled my brains - grin):

(1) "18 USC 1153 and 2032 makes it a crime to have carnal knowledge of a female, not his wife who has not attainaed an age of sixteen years.' (pg 69)

(2) On pg 70 the authors suggest adopting the Model Penal Code and 1973 Senate Bill S. 1400 (given the pronound use in S. 1400 is changed to cover both sexes)

(3) S. 1400 states, "A person is guilty of an offense if (he) engages in a sexual act with another person, not (his) spouse and . . . " "(3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old." (pg 71)

--- take these facts together and the implication that the document is recommending a reduction of the age of consent from 16 to 12 can be made. It isn't true -- the clear intent of the authors is to make the proposed law gender neutral, but the fact is that the old law had 16 as the age and the proposed law had 12 years as the age is a fact -- not a relevent fact given the context of the work, but one which our republican butt-heads have chosen to cherry pick out of context from the document.

It's all in the spin -- it's all in the spin.

[junkiebrewster]

17. the sad thing is...

Lindsay Graham is about the best Republican that South Carolina has to offer, meaning he's the LEAST kooky.

I've already made his "nutcase" list for vitriolic e-mails. I guess it's time to send another...