I noticed that in the hearings today that Amy is wearing a Ruth B Ginsburg pin!
So right you are! And now having the option to set the time frame to “forever” has made CAF much more pleasant.
It’s easier to just use it as a function in the end than engage with the upsurge of far right posters (and their far left equivalents) as it just goes round in circles and some of them are very good at engaging in behaviour that goes right up to the edge of the rulebook but doesn’t cross over into territory that would get them a suspension or ban. Some of this flood of newer posters are plainly here due to your election in the US and as soon as that ends will suddenly likely fade away, I’ve seen that before. There are numerous dormant accounts from previous election cycles lying unused.
So why was the age changed in the proposed revision of the statute then? After all if there was no intent to change the age, why not just leave it at 16?
You might want to remember that Justice Ginsberg was not a legislator. If someone proposed a revision of a statute, you’d have to ask the legislator who proposed it.
One last time for those who don’t understand:
She was advocating a change from a legal presupposition that all perpetrators were male and all victims female – which is obviously untrue – to a more reasonable basis that perpetrators of sexual assault can be of either gender, as can their victims.
Now, if you want to argue that she was wrong about that, I suggest a new thread. I don’t think you’d get many takers on that idea, though.