Robertson falsely claimed Justice Ginsburg "believed in" polygamy, prostitution, consent age of 12
On the November 21 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, claimed that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg "believed in" polygamy, legalized prostitution, and lowering the age of consent to 12 years old. Robertson's comments were an apparent reference to a 1974 report that Ginsburg co-authored when she was general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. But contrary to Robertson's assertion, in the report, she did not express a personal belief on any of the three issues. Rather, she stated only that it is "arguable" that prostitution is protected under the Constitution and that legislation restricting the rights of bigamists or "persons cohabiting with more than one person" appeared to violate the Constitution. She took no position regarding the age of consent.
Robertson made the comments in response to the recent revelation that Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in 1985 that "the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion." Following a report on recent statements by leading Senate Democrats regarding the possibility of mounting a filibuster against the Alito nomination, Robertson said:
ROBERTSON: I think the Democrats are blowing smoke on this one. I don't think that that group of 14 senators is going to go along with a filibuster. What are extraordinary circumstances? The fact that 20 years ago, on a job application, he [Alito] said these were his views, and he goes before the committee, and he says, "Well, I've moderated my views over the last 20 years." How are they going to filibuster him? But look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The stuff that she believed in was absolutely outlandish, you know, polygamy, legalized prostitution, legalized -- the age of consent dropped to 12. And on and on. And the Republican Senate confirmed her almost unanimously.
Robertson's statement echoed others conservatives' claims about the "Ginsburg precedent" -- the label hatched shortly after the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court to describe Ginsburg's 1993 Supreme Court confirmation process, in which, conservatives argue, Senate Republicans put aside their ideological differences, refrained from requiring her to answer questions that would signal how she would decide future cases, and approved her nomination by an overwhelming majority. In order to bolster their case that Republicans approved Ginsburg despite her purported liberal views, conservative commentators such as Wall Street Journal columnist Manuel Miranda and Fox News host Sean Hannity have distorted Ginsburg's 1974 report, titled "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law," falsely claiming that she advocated legalized prostitution and a lowered age of consent.
But in the report, Ginsburg did not assert her beliefs on these issues. On the matter of legalized prostitution, she wrote: "Prostitution as a consensual act between adults is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." Here she merely stated that an argument could be made that the act of prostitution is constitutionally protected. When the same issue arose during Ginsburg's 1993 confirmation hearings, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) agreed that the sentence could not be construed as a stated position, much less a belief: "You were making an academic point. I understand. I'm not trying to indicate that you were justifying prostitution."
Regarding the age of consent, Ginsburg's report noted a 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation that rejected the "traditional sex discriminatory fashion" in which the United States Code defined rape. The bill laid out three circumstances as constituting rape, including that "the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old." But Ginsburg cited the bill only for the purposes of noting its gender-neutral language and did not address the merits of the clause regarding "age of consent."
In the case of polygamy, Ginsburg questioned the constitutionality of legislation that restricted the right to vote or hold office of bigamists or "persons cohabiting with more than one person." Ginsburg wrote that the provision "appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships" and recommended that it "be narrowed to avoid conflict with constitutionally protected privacy interests." She did not, however, state any beliefs regarding the act of polygamy itself.
This dude is irrelevant.
Well, that settles it, Pat. You should advocate taking her out on your show and see what happens. By the way, God said he ain't gonna smite Dover, PA... he loves the cappucino and bearclaws at the local Wawa.
The stuff that she believed in was absolutely outlandish, you know, polygamy, legalized prostitution, legalized -- the age of consent dropped to 12.
Ironic that there are passages in the Old Testament that seem to be okay with much of this outlandish stuff.
Why does Pat Robertson hate the Old Testament?
Republicans (and the media) conveniently forget that Ginsburg was selected after much consultation w/ Republicans by Clinton. In fact both Ginsburg and Breyer were on Orrin Hatch's "approved" list prior to their nomination.
Speaking of the Bible, isn't "bearing false witness" one of those pesky little Ten Commandments? I'm sure Pat would tell you that a man can get himself into a heap of trouble for violating one of those.
"I'm sure Pat would tell you that a man can get himself into a heap of trouble for violating one of those."
Maybe he's got a fireproof swimsuit and isn't worried about it.
this is why i think robberson is really an atheist.
I believe in those things, too. I have to. They exist. It doesn't make any sense not to believe in them.
That doesn't mean I condone them, it's simply a matter of existence.
For anybody who wants to check Ginsburg's actual statements against Robertson's (mis)representations: they're in the section that discusses Title 18 of the U.S. Code, on pp. 67-74 of the report. (Follow MMFA's link to download a .pdf file of the document.)
Why is this fool still permitted to spew lies and hatred on the air? Why haven't cable companies looked in on his hate-fest and taken his "Christian" broadcasting network off the air?
i wish there were a law requiring all misstatements in the media to be corrected.
half of robberson's shows would be eaten up with corrections.
Would you be surprised to learn that Rev. Robertson himself recently said on his "700 Club" show that he had no problems with a 14 year-old girl dating either an 18- or 21 year-old man (I forget the exact age). He did caution that the couple would have to consult the laws of their state regarding the age of consent for marriage. Needless to say, his female co-host strongly disagreed with him.
I feel sick and confused. Here's why. On page 69 of the 1974 report co-authored by Ginsburg, existing laws about statutory rape are laid out: "18 U.S.C §§ 1153 and 2032 make it a crime for a person to have carnal knowledge of a female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years." After brief mention of other sections of the law related to jurisdiction, sentencing, and special situations, the article continues:
The paper then discusses gender issues related to rape laws and goes back to the issue of punishment, saying "But note the constitutional problem and highly questionable policy reflected in 18 U.S.C §§ 3567, 1111, and 2031 which authorize the death penalty for rape among other crimes."
This leads to the paragraph that confuses Robertson and others -- including me! (Following is from page 70-71 of the paper; formatting is slightly different, and text of footnote at end of the passage instead of bottom of page.)
Here's my source of confusion: If the authors' only interest was gender, a) why raise the issue of punishment twice (15 years to severe for first offense, death penalty constitutionally problematic) and b) the issue of age saying there needed to be a significant difference between the age of the offender and the victim, and c) then omit of any discussion when the age of 12 appears in the definition of rape in S.1400 of the 1973 Senate Bill.)
If the footnote could be added to say that the word "he" should be changed to a gender neutral term, it should also be possible to add a footnote saying 12 is too young as the age of consent, yet the authors remain mute on the subject (other than to requirre a significant difference in age between offender and victim.)
What about prostitution? Whether because of constitutional difficulties, or to make an academic point, on page 74 the authors write:
Why did Ginsburg attach her name to this piece of work? I hate to say it, but whether through apathy or carelessness, Ginsburg's own paper does appear to support the notion that, at least in 1974, she accepted both changing the age of consent from 16 to 12, and decriminalizing prostitution.