Hannity falsely claimed Ginsburg advocated legalizing prostitution, lowering the consent age to 12
Fox News host Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had supported both "legalized prostitution" and lowering "the age of consent to 12" prior to her 1993 confirmation hearing. A 1974 report co-authored by Ginsburg did address the constitutionality of prohibitions on prostitution and did refer to legislation that set the age of consent at 12 years. But Ginsburg did not assert a position on either issue, as Media Matters for America previously noted in response to a nearly identical claim made by Wall Street Journal columnist Manuel Miranda.
During an interview with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the October 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Hannity brought up what he called the "Ginsburg rule" -- commonly known as the "Ginsburg precedent." This is the deceptive argument -- hatched shortly after the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. -- that Senate Republicans responded to Ginsburg's 1993 nomination by putting aside their ideological differences and not requiring her to answer questions that would signal how she would decide future cases, thereby establishing a precedent for the opposition party's handling of future Supreme Court nominees. Hannity went on to detail Ginsburg's "very left-wing" record:
HANNITY: I guess where I am on this, if you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, she -- the Ginsburg rule, she doesn't have to answer specific questions, clearly pro-choice going in, thinks there may even be a constitutional right to polygamy, has a controversial view we should lower the age of consent to 12, supports legalized prostitution, very left-wing.
But Hannity's claims regarding Ginsburg's views on prostitution and the age of consent rely on a distorted reading of her 1974 report titled "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law." On the issue of prostitution, the report read: "Prostitution as a consensual act between adults is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." While Hannity and Miranda have misconstrued this sentence as an argument in favor of constitutional protection for prostitution, Ginsburg was merely stating that an argument could be made that such activity is protected by the Constitution. Indeed, during her 1993 confirmation hearing, when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) noted this passage, Ginsburg highlighted the presence of the term "arguably." Hatch went on to concede that the sentence could not be construed as a stated position: "You were making an academic point. I understand. I'm not trying to indicate that you were justifying prostitution."
The claim that Ginsburg put forth the "controversial view we should lower the age of consent to 12" is also false. In a section of the 1974 report objecting to the "traditional sex discriminatory fashion" in which the United States Code defined rape, Ginsburg cited a 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation that better "conform[ed] to the equality principle." One of the three circumstances that the bill established as constituting rape read as follows: "the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old." But Ginsburg was noting with approval only the measure's gender-neutral language; she never directly addressed the clause regarding "age of consent." In a September 16 column taking issue with this particular criticism of Ginsburg, Slate.com's Timothy Noah wrote: "What, then, is Ruth Bader Ginsburg's true crime? In discussing how to rewrite the federal law addressing statutory rape, Ginsburg failed to state an opinion about what the age of consent should be."
This is unfair. You're asking Hannity and the vast majority of his adherents to possess a level of discernment they just don't possess. It would be like expecting Forrest Gump to understand the fine points of our southeast Asia foreign policy. It's just not right.
I don't know if it's a case of "his adherents" not possessing "a level of discernment" they just don't have; they've just been brainwashed from listening to Sean. They don't want to hear what the truth is, they like hearing the spin.
Hannity probably is just not bright enough to understand the subtle nuances of legal language and analysis, so perhaps this isn't more of his straw men and lies that he uses to marginalize progressive thinkers. Ahhh hell, who am I kidding, of course it is. Was probably handed to him by Karl Rove himself along with a transcript of what to say.
Hannity has repeated these lies so many times that at this point he probably believes them himself. He also always mentions that Judge Ginsburg was the ACLU Counsel - yes, that dreaded right-wing boogeyman the ACLU. He states this as if that was all one had to hear - no mention, of course, that it was Sen. Orin Hatch that suggested Judge Ginsburg to President Clinton. Or actually reference her voting record (agreeing with Judge Bork - what was she thinking) while on the Federal bench.
Sheer Insanity lies so much that it is impossible to keep track of them all...it would take a 6 or 9 hour show each day to explain the lies he manages to spew out in just 3.
What I want to know is what sort of process can we use to drive a stake through the heart of this kind of propaganda. This was debunked the first time it was brought up, then again the next time yet, since it is useful for propaganda purposes, like the undead it raises its ugly head every time it is useful to trot it out.
Call the show and call him on it.
As soon as you call him on it, he claims that he read the entire report and claims that you didn't. The rest of the call is then about your claim to have also read the report.
You know there is now way in he@@ he read any report that is over 5 pages long.
by BillJ-MN - Wednesday November 2, 2005 09:10:11 AM EST --------------
I think you present a pretty accurate assessment. I also think that when Democrats DID have control, they squandered it just like Republicans are doing now. It will continue to go back and forth, IMO, because neither side can handle success. When you look at where we were at in 2000, and the Dem lost, vs where we were at in 2004, and the Repub won, it boggles the mind. The fact that Bush got almost 51% despite his record should worry Dems, he should have been defeated no question about it. Dem leadership should be held accountable for that.
I do think you are overstating the fact that Dems can't get their ideas out. Howard Dean gets a high amount of coverage, he can present Dem ideas all he wants for the American People to chew on. It gets covered.
Of course, Hannity uses these distortions/lies to try to portray Ginsberg as totally wacky.
First, has Ginsberg voted in the Supreme Court to 'advocate' these supposed "beliefs" of hers? Has she voted to uphold lowering the age of consent? Has she voted to legalize prostitution?
In fact, the age of consent varies wildly among the "several states". It's a state's rights issue, and the Supreme Court has not interfered.
[link to www.webistry.net]
Prostitution is legal in Nevada. Again, a state's rights issue that Ginsberg has not attempted to interfere with.
So, Hannity throws out a LIE that is inflammatory to his puritanical listeners, but what is he really saying? That Ginsberg would "legislate from the bench" to impose the view he attributes to her on all the states? If that's a danger, why hasn't it HAPPENED? Why is there no CLUE that Ginsberg would do such a thing?
I swear, these rightwingers are so illogically vicious, ... bah!
This is something Hannity will repeat ad infinitum with every mention of Justice Ginsburg. It's like "Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter", or "what about the rape rooms and torture chambers in Iraq under Saddam?". He is very adept at taking out of context info and using it to advance a shallow, one dimensional, partisan agenda. He trumpets himself as a "beacon of truth". I think that somewhere on his back is a little string that, when pulled, causes him to spout these partisan talking points, which are changed regularly while he's sleeping. He's incredibly shallow and shies away from anything close to an honest discussion. When he's not shamelessly sucking up to his right wing guests he's badgering those who disagree with him by forcing them to answer a single 'hard' question. When they don't play along, he gets insulting. He is the epitome of what he accuses everyone else of being when he can't browbeat them into submission; intellectually dishonest.