Bowsite.com

Terry

One a side note, the whack job lefties are offering up their ribs and other body parts to keep her going......smh

The Rock

How can anyone tell?

Remember the old SNL skits and the resemblance is amazing.

The Rock

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I do hope she heals quickly. And retires even quicker.

Some of you need a new perspective.

Matt

We all need a new perspective and more so a new SC justice. ;-)

The Rock

""Ginsburg may have “changed” her opinion on this (or pretended to) by the time of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Several liberal websites of course deny that she supports pedophilia, but there’s a PDF file with quotes from some of her earlier writings, which you can see for yourself.""

I oppose everything this vile evil witch stands for and I I will not miss a wink of sleep if the teeth gnasher croaked tomorrow.

I don't have to agree with her politically, but I'd never wish harm on her. She has done the best she can with her beliefs. And while I might not agree with them, she has remained diligent to her post.

So has Gosnell .........

It is time to retire.

That's fine to feel that way, she still may be stubborn enough to not retire. At 85 yrs she probably would have nothing to occupy her time after being on the Supreme Court. She may stay on the SC till her last day to spite Trump.

Disgusting and shameful!

Would she be the first person in America that someone would wish be dead or in the more appealing terms "retired"? I believe JTV's sentiments and anger would have favored that term but reacting to the antifa types at times your head is independent of your heart. JTV wears his political sentiments on his sleeve and must be taken with a grain of salt. Those who are a blight on this nation and who have committed crimes against the people are wished dead. Correct?

Those who carry a Robe or white collar and commit high crimes against the people they were elected or appointed to protect directly or indirectly are somehow given a pass and revolted upon to stated a opinion? C'MON with the accolades," this fine lady"..yes who would have your grandchild in chains and make no doubt about it through her past opinions of policy and votes. Are we playing the woman card or the emotional "human" card? Nobody WANTS anybody dead but sometimes it is necessary evil that we must face and agree with. IMO nobody wants RBG in her present condition to fit the literal"want dead" scenario, but to hopefully remove, retire or otherwise recover but not to return to the bench is the hope of many ,MOST conservatives. As far as she is concerned this may be a sort of death but ONLY in her fear of who replaces her. Should a seated SC justice hate and despise the POTUS and rule accordingly?

May she live to be a thousand and I mean that but not on the Supreme Court another day.

The RBG situation is unique because it is political and has dramatic ramifications to the welfare of the state, its people its future. Lives weigh in the future balance of her inability and prejudices to rule with her physical and mental impairments. Sleeping while your colleague's are under discussion to rule should immediately disqualify you from the bench. She is holding on politically to prevent a nation from regaining its senses and political balance and in that regard alone she is dangerous to the people. What was it again we do to those who are dangerous to the people? We remove them. Throw her a party with a robo section on cue that will give standing ovations long into the night if need be. Cast a bronze bust of her to be placed at every intersection in America if that is what it will take for the woman in this nation to be happy. Do it all but do it FAST.

The Rock

The Rock

Did you or did you not claim those things?

So just lie, lie, lie. Spin, spin, spin.

Seek help!

Seriously!

What a fall from a guy who was once one of my favorite posters.

Something happened to him of which he is either unaware or refuses to admit to.

I guess I never knew the person you speak of. Slade to me has always been quick to personally attack those who do not hold his views.

I hope and pray he can allow for others who think differently than him.

Slade to me has always been quick to personally attack those who do not hold his views. "

Yep!

But now all he's capable of is calling people names, generally using language only a pre-teen would use.

Feeble one, you have to be a complete moron to think I have ever linked one of those sites...

Slate’s Noah on Graham and Ginsburg: Wrong Again By ED WHELAN September 30, 2005

It appears that Slate’s Timothy Noah simply can’t acknowledge when he’s wrong. As I recently discussed, Noah criticized Sen. Lindsay Graham and, to a lesser extent, Eugene Volokh and me for pointing out that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as an ACLU attorney in the 1970s, had advocated legislative changes that would have reduced the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12. Volokh and I (Volokh far more thoroughly than I) completely refuted Noah.

Noah is out of ammunition, but hasn’t given up. In his reply yesterday, Noah relies primarily on tendentious distortions of the issue: Did Ginsburg “ever condone pedophilia,” he asks? “Volokh and Whelan insist that in praising S. 1400, §1633, Ginsburg was praising the lowering of the age of consent,” he asserts. On the issue actually in dispute—did Ginsburg advocate legislative changes that would have reduced the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12?—Noah claims that “it simply isn’t true that Ginsburg was proposing the language [from S. 1400] she cited.… Ginsburg never wrote, or even implied, that all the language be adopted verbatim.” According to Noah’s parsing, she merely proposed language “patterned after” S. 1400.

Wrong again. As I stated in my previous post, here (from page 76 of her report) is Ginsburg’s specific recommendation regarding 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 the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633.” (Italics added.) In the recommendation immediately following, regarding 18 U.S.C. §1153, Ginsburg likewise states: “Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife and substitute the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633.” (Again, italics added.) (Ginsburg’s complete report is available at the link at the bottom here, but may take some time to download.) In other words, Ginsburg specifically proposed that the bill language providing for an age of consent of 12 “be adopted verbatim.”

Well, of course not.

Because he showed us all what a gullible and phony idiot you are.

Slade's favorite word is 'pontificator', in case you didn't notice.

Slate’s Noah on Graham and Ginsburg: Wrong Again By ED WHELAN September 30, 2005

It appears that Slate’s Timothy Noah simply can’t acknowledge when he’s wrong. As I recently discussed, Noah criticized Sen. Lindsay Graham and, to a lesser extent, Eugene Volokh and me for pointing out that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as an ACLU attorney in the 1970s, had advocated legislative changes that would have reduced the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12. Volokh and I (Volokh far more thoroughly than I) completely refuted Noah.

Noah is out of ammunition, but hasn’t given up. In his reply yesterday, Noah relies primarily on tendentious distortions of the issue: Did Ginsburg “ever condone pedophilia,” he asks? “Volokh and Whelan insist that in praising S. 1400, §1633, Ginsburg was praising the lowering of the age of consent,” he asserts. On the issue actually in dispute—did Ginsburg advocate legislative changes that would have reduced the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12?—Noah claims that “it simply isn’t true that Ginsburg was proposing the language [from S. 1400] she cited.… Ginsburg never wrote, or even implied, that all the language be adopted verbatim.” According to Noah’s parsing, she merely proposed language “patterned after” S. 1400.

Wrong again. As I stated in my previous post, here (from page 76 of her report) is Ginsburg’s specific recommendation regarding 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 the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633.” (Italics added.) In the recommendation immediately following, regarding 18 U.S.C. §1153, Ginsburg likewise states: “Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife and substitute the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633.” (Again, italics added.) (Ginsburg’s complete report is available at the link at the bottom here, but may take some time to download.) In other words, Ginsburg specifically proposed that the bill language providing for an age of consent of 12 “be adopted verbatim.”

As soon as you type 'p', pontificator comes up now doesn't it?

Nice try, burden of proof is on you, not us. We know Kevin is accurate on stuff like that. No doubt he kept track of them in a Word document just for a special occasion like this when the real liar tries and distracts by calling everyone else names. Time to move on to third grade now Slade. You can do it, we will encourage you when you feel the anxiety of having to grow up.

Now explain how the national review site is wacked out, along with CNS news, and the first link form the Eagle Forum.

And the opinion you formed is wrong, along with the other progressives who you used to back your opinion which you now claim is original thought. What a disingenuous fraud.

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.

The report's recommendation tracked the proposal in a then-recent senate bill (S. 1400 § 1633), but the authors were perfectly free to urge their own language, or to urge a mix of the bill language and their own language. In fact, as Mr. Noah himself points out, the Ginsburg report criticized S. 1400's use of "he" to cover both men and women. If the Ginsburg report disagreed with the proposal's lowering of the age of consent to 12, the report could easily have noted that as well, or at least could have noted that it was agnostic about the age of consent, and was recommending only the sex-neutralization aspects of the S. 1400 proposal.

Moreover, the Ginsburg report isn't bashful about expressing itself on some matters besides sex discrimination. For instance, its criticism of prostitution bans isn't limited to objections that the bans discriminate based on sex (either on their face or in their enforcement); the report also argues that prostitution may be substantively constitutionally protected as part of people's sexual autonomy rights (p. 72 of the 1974 version, p. 97 of the 1977 version). The Report likewise faults the Mann Act, which "prohibits the transportation of women and girls for prostitution, debauchery, or any other immoral purpose" (emphasis mine) not just for its sex discrimination, but also because it is "too broad and vague," and an "invasion of privacy" (p. 73 of the 1974 version, p. 98 of the 1977 version).

Mr. Noah suggests that "Ginsburg didn't address the age-of-consent issue because it wasn't relevant to her topic. Say it with me. She wasn't writing about age; she was writing about gender!" Yet the report, though about gender and not about sexual autonomy rights, vagueness, or overbreadth, opined on a possible constitutional right to engage in prostitution, and the vagueness and breadth of the Mann Act. If the report's authors found fault with the Senate bill's proposed age of consent, they could likewise have easily said so. (Mr. Noah is right to point out that the report's authors continued to include the spousal rape exception in their recommendation, though it's probable that they didn't much like that exception. That part of the recommendation, though, maintained then-existing law, so presumably the drafters didn't want to take on a new fight there. The lowering of the age of consent, though, would have dramatically changed existing law, and it's hard to see why they would endorse the change if they didn't actually support the change.)

3. Mr. Noah also asks — based on my own observation that the version of S. 1400 § 1633 that I could find provided an age of 16, not 12 — "Could all this Sturm und Drang be over . . . a typo? A typo that, mysteriously, was transposed from Ginsburg's 1974 paper to the 1977 booklet? That would be too rich."

As it happens, I have just today found another version of S. 1400 § 1633 (excerpted in 13 Crim. Law Reporter 3011, Apr. 4, 1973), which did set the age of consent at twelve. This must be the version to which the Ginsburg report referred. Yet even if it were possible that the Ginsburg report simply had a copying error in it (I surely can't fault Mr. Noah for not having found the version that I couldn't find earlier myself), I don't see how this possibility would make Sen. Graham's and Mr. Whelan's criticism of Justice Ginsburg into a "smear," or even how it would "seriously undermine[ Volokh's original] argument" (Mr. Noah's words).

It seems to me that people are entitled to take others' proposals at face value, at least unless there's an obvious drafting error (to give a hypothetical example, imagine a proposal that mentions an age of consent of "sixteen days" instead of "sixteen years"). If the proposal's author then says "Whoops, I miswrote something," or even "Very sorry, a too-libertarian student added this, and I didn't catch it," we should certainly consider that explanation, and generally accept it. But unless such an explanation is forthcoming from the authors or others who know (and not just guess), it's no "smear" to accurately summarize and criticize others' writing.

4. Finally, I should certainly acknowledge that Sen. Graham was inexact in the tense of his statements that Justice Ginsburg "represents the ACLU," "wants the age of consent to be 12," and "believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution." Obviously, Justice Ginsburg represented the ACLU in the 1970s; she doesn't represent them as a lawyer now. Moreover, we don't know for sure that Justice Ginsburg, even if she endorsed every word in her report, would still recommend today that the age of consent be lowered to 12, or would still say that there's even "arguably" a constitutional right to prostitution. Justice Ginsburg's reputation as a judge in the 1980s and a justice since the 1990s has been of a relatively moderate liberal, not the harder-core liberal that seems to be visible in the pages of the reports. Perhaps she's changed her views (as Mr. Noah suggests), or, again, perhaps she didn't closely review every word that appeared in the initial report. But again it hardly seems like a "smear" to attribute to people their past views, unless they have specifically recanted their views; the more careful and precise usage is to make clear that Justice Ginsburg said she wanted this in the past, not that she wants it today, but the less careful usage is no smear.

It thus seems to me that Sen. Graham and Mr. Whelan are more sinned against than sinning here. They accurately reported or quoted the views expressed in the report that Justice Ginsburg cowrote. The accounts are indeed in context, given that the report was suggesting a change in the law, and that the report felt free to opine not just on sex discrimination but also on some substantive matters. Maybe there was an error in the report, maybe Justice Ginsburg didn't fully check everything the report contained, or maybe her views are different now. But it seems to me unsound to characterize Sen. Graham's statement as a "smear" or Mr. Whelan's accurate quotes from the Ginsburg report as "ridiculously distorted."

Lol.

You are now an official pontificating, ankle biting appeaser. Welcome to the club, name granted by a wannabe third grader.

Slade, the reason I started the 'Predictions' thread was to flush out the folks like you who cannot think for themselves. The ones who can not read competing views, discern a pattern and make a close call. Some like you have no idea so they either say what their far right base espouses, or because of the anxiety of having to make their own call just retreat to Mom's basement, aka, their residence where in their comfort zone they alternate between video game jockey and key board tough guy.

" the reason I started the 'Predictions' thread was to flush out the folks like you who cannot think for themselves". What purpose would it serve and ulterior motive of this flushing out of those " who cannot think for themselves"? Where would one acquire these skills and then determine, once revealed to ones self, those believed afflicted? Who would wield the power to categorize these inferior and dangerous people ala McCarthyism to " lend a helping hand"?

Welcome to the club?.....I would leave that one right where it sits and leave fast. I've learned a few things in my life comrade. Maybe just a "few" but those few I know well enough to raise a eyebrow. Example: Matt/GG and myself are for the most part oil and water. There are occasions where we rattle the sword, draw the sword but refrain, sometimes inches away from using it for its intended purpose. A respect slowly builds that you are assured if you should engage, you may be nicked, but the ultimate comfort is to realize you are at heated odds at times with someone who leaves you a way out. That is slaying your opponent, rounding out your argument, replete with a compliment and a bandage for the future fight or possibly a not so colorful agreement with you opponent. ;-0

I believe you may have unwittingly fallen into the same exact trap that you have devised. This vaguely connected but consistent agreement pertaining to certain individuals appears on the surface to be a "unity of thought reunion". The CF has rehashed this many times before. I imagine I can then agree with your assessment of " those who cannot think for themselves" may be true indeed.

Whadda ya think?

The Rock

I think you vascillate back and forth from Pluto to Rocky, still not sure why.

The CF was dominated by voices on the extreme right that went unchallenged for too long. It became ridiculous, sophmoric actually, when others chimed in like mindless trolls.

I think we both want conservative idealogy to be respected and taken seriously. Serious thought requires reflection and a willingness to hear and engage the other side without always being reduced to name calling and meme posting, IMHO Rock.

That is why I confront falsehoods, propaganda etc from the right. I hope folks from the left reading the CF observe there are men who believe in God, markets, guns, hunting who are normal and rational and treat woman as required.

Hope that helps? Rock, you talk of your respect growing via interacting here, like with GG. That is great. For me, personal contact is necessary for a respectful friendship and bond to cement. This is just about conversation and the vetting of a difference of opinions. That type of engagement for me at least requires honest and consistent behavior. The lack of either causes my irritation and sharp edge to show. I offer no apology for that.

Looking for an answer is all. Prefer to defer if you may. That is the option of those who can and those who some believe can't think for themselves. Maybe you should inquire about the planets and constellations yourself because it is not all that bad listening at times to the thoughts and opinions of earthlings. ;-)

The Rock

Ah, but it did say what I say it did, two attorneys explained it.....No matter what you critical pontificated it to be.

Because one now says it may, might, could, possibly be, is likely a drafting error does not change the fact of what it says..... Next

I love listening to the opinions of others, if original. Not the regurgitation of some talking head, as Kevin pointed out.

That's why I read several hours a day, and form my own opinions based on credible information. I don't defer, at least not too often.

Sincere thanks for the dialogue!

I 'm still waiting for you to dig up the article where RBG sets the record straight.......

You are such a bitter revengeful fool you wanted to believe I actually posted or agreed with the wack'o sites KPC listed " Did you or did you not claim those things?" ""Wanna' even TRY to deal with K Cummings posts noting the very things you wrote, slade?"

Diminished capacity at the minimum.

I fear it's beyond that.

Terry

I'm sure slade already knows that.

LOL

Not good.

The Rock

The Rock

You may have a valid point, but have you ever taken exception to Slade's vicious name calling? If not, please reconsider your definition of a level playing field.

I bet all others involved here will agree we welcome all participation that at least attempts to be respectful, most of the time at least.

Thanks.

The former ramblings of fill and text aside I would advise: We should all refrain from belittling a member, other than the obvious trolls who relish that degradation, who then returns fire of its own. The stage is then set for a future blowout altercation tied to a personal vengeance of the past. Who benefits? The audience and the pop corn vendors.

The Rock

Such a disingenuous worm , keep spreading your lies pontificator.

See last post, your theory is toast. ;)

We understand just fine. I work with gobs of intellectuals, they will tell you so. I do not hear them ever pontificate with the high octane caliber of your poetry.

But then again, I have never smoked the whacky or been around a toakers convention in full throttle. It appears I have not missed much;)

I imagine "understanding" in a convoluted way could be confused with "overestimating". Therein may very well be my problem. Thinking in overtime does not pay time and a half, the dividends much higher. One thing is becoming ominously clear. Either you have purposely avoided the "bud" or the "bud" has purposely avoided you. Whichever, one or both of you have wasted a telling experience.

Think it possible the weakness resides in the reader of the text, deflecting the deficiency on the text itself? I believe your "intellectuals" have yonder to travel but would enjoy the rendezvous none the less, wherever the hell that may be. ;-) I can arrange a speaking engagement for your class and your "intellectuals" can engage me. " High" comedy for your students. ;-)

YOUR one of the good guys Frank I know that, but you can't reach down for something above you. ;-)

The Rock

out..... The Rock

Apparently she is telecommuting, aka, working from home.

Just like you had a problem with "Thread Owner Tools, Pat named it thread owner tool for a reason, it was the OP's thread not your thread to derail it.

What I say or call you cowards on this thread is no different than I would say to your face,I get to the point, unlike thy spineless weasels who use implied statements and negative connotations and somehow that makes you a better than.

We move forward to 2005 when Sen. Lindsey Graham mentioned the age of consent, out came progressives making all kinds of claims like she was only speaking about gender, but they are unable to say why 16-18 was removed and replaced by 12 if they were only talking about gender.

Others such as Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post wrote "But even if Ginsburg took that position, it doesn't tell you all that much -- which is no doubt why she got just one question about the report during her confirmation hearings. She hadn't made getting rid of Mother's Day her life's work. And in any event, she had a much more recent body of work -- her dozen years as an appeals court judge -- that belied any notion that she was a raging lefty." the good old that was then, this is now and "what difference does it matter".

No where do the progressives or pontificating banty capon's deny the rest of her far left musing's , yet one must believe that a lawyer of her intelligence and attention to detail let that "12" slide and they now use weak arguments such as might,could, probably, likely as concrete evidence in this one circumstance in a 230 page paper RBG did not mean what was written .

You can imply all you want with your snide derogatory connotations , I am not buying it..........and no you will not censor me.

And not even then.

Thanks, and I know you are one of the good guys also, sincerely.

It was my choice. I wanted to make something of myself, and life has been tough enough with my senses intact. It's as simple as that.

Regarding reaching down, Slade's attacks on people serve to stifle their voices just like he is accusing others of doing to him. Think about it.

I hate bullies, an awful lot. I have been on a Mission from God, but it has little to do with music other than tuning up a few blowhards through the years;)

Link please to the version please..

Of course you did, when one is only interested in their preconceived cockmadawed opinion based on Snopes, Slate, Politico and the other pussivanters.

On Friday Sept 30th Volokh went on and clarified what he ment.

""Here's what I now think the report was probably intending to recommend:

(1) Elsewhere in the recommendations, the report would have sex-neutralized the definition of rape ("A sex-neutral definition of rape, such as the one set forth in S. 1400 §1631 should be added to Title 18 or Title 10 and referred to throughout for the definition of the offense.").

(2) The recommendation as to "carnal knowledge" was not intended just to sex-neutralize the definition of rape or carnal knowledge, but rather to replace the flat age of consent of 16 with the more complex "Romeo-and-Juliet scheme" (under which sex with under-16-year-olds was legal for people who were less than 5 years older, a misdemeanor for under-21-year-olds who were more than 5 years older than the victim, and a felony punishable by at most 3 years in prison for adults). This is consistent with the earlier discussion in the report, where the report praises Romeo-and-Juliet laws, and consistent with the fact that it had already recommended that rape be sex-neutralized (see item 1 above).

(3) The recommendation correctly cited §1633 but erroneously quoted the text from §1631; it should have read "patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person who is not his spouse, who is less than sixteen years old, and who is at least five years younger than the actor. . . ."

(4) The recommendations were also intended to make sure that any sex with under-12-year-olds, regardless of the age of the other party, would be illegal; but that would have been accomplished through the recommendation that "A sex-neutral definition of rape, such as the one set forth in S. 1400 §1631 should be added to Title 18 or Title 10 and referred to throughout for the definition of the offense." That definition would have included a flat ban on sex with under-12-year-olds.

So a person who was just reading the report would have rightly inferred, I think, that the report was meaning to change the age of consent. (That's why it recommends including §1633, the main purpose of which is to change the age of consent, not to sex-neutralize the offense.) A casual reader might also have inferred that the report was meaning to change the age of consent to 12, period, which is what the text says.

But the careful reader — which I, unfortunately, was not (especially in my more recent post on the subject here) — should have realized that the report was likely intending to recommend replacing the "carnal knowledge" ban not with a flat age of consent of 12 (what the text said) but rather with a graduated Romeo-and-Juliet age of consent that would have been set at 16 for adults (what the §1633 that the text cited said).

So while I still disagree in some measure with some of Tim Noah's analysis in Slate (I think the report was endorsing a change in the age of consent, and not just talking about sex-neutralization, and I think Ginsburg's critics' views may well have been just a reasonable mistake and not a deliberate smear), and while I stand by my points about the report's recommendation to decriminalize prostitution and its likely recommendation to decriminalize polygamy, I now find it highly unlikely that the authors of the report really did intend to recommend that the age of consent be generally lowered to 12. Rather, the recommendations cited the right subsection but quoted the wrong one; and the intended purpose was to decriminalize sex between 12-year-olds and up-to-16/17-year-olds and substantially lower the maximum penalties for sex between 12-year-olds and older partners (from 15 years to 3 years) — a scheme that is probably still less restrictive than many (including me) would endorse, but that makes much more sense than a flat age of consent of 12. ""

Only in a cockmadowed world would letting a 6th grader make the decision to have sexual relations with a senior in High School be anything other than CONSENT while at the same time lowering the penalties for anyone over 18 having sexual relationships with a 12 year old from 15 year to 3 years be considered anything but EVIL.....