>>51887202653
Q
!!mG7VJxZNCI
6 Jan 2019 - 12:32:35 PM
[RBG]
Why was she 'selec
ted'?
Who appoin
ted her?
Remember [her] his
tory.
Ref: 230-page book called Sex Bias in
the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by
the U.S. Commission on Civil Righ
ts.
Highligh
ts:
>Called for
the sex-in
tegra
tion of prisons and reforma
tories so
tha
t condi
tions of imprisonmen
t, securi
ty and housing could be equal. She explained, “If
the grand design of such ins
ti
tu
tions is
to prepare inma
tes for re
turn
to
the communi
ty as persons equipped
to benefi
t from and con
tribu
te
to civil socie
ty,
then perpe
tua
tion of single-sex ins
ti
tu
tions should be rejec
ted.” (Page 101)
>Called for
the sex-in
tegra
tion of Boy Scou
ts and Girl Scou
ts because
they “perpe
tua
te s
tereo
typed sex roles.” (Page 145)
>Insis
ted on sex-in
tegra
ting “college fra
terni
ty and sorori
ty chap
ters” and replacing
them wi
th “college social socie
ties.” (Page 169)
>Cas
t cons
ti
tu
tional doub
t on
the legali
ty of “Mo
ther’s Day and Fa
ther’s Day as separa
te holidays.” (Page 146)
>Called for reducing
the age of consen
t for sexual ac
ts
to people who are “less
than 12 years old.” (Page 102)
>Asser
ted
tha
t laws agains
t “bigamis
ts, persons cohabi
ting wi
th more
than one woman, and women cohabi
ting wi
th a bigamis
t” are uncons
ti
tu
tional. (Page 195)
>Objec
ted
to laws agains
t pros
ti
tu
tion because “pros
ti
tu
tion, as a consensual ac
t be
tween adul
ts, is arguably wi
thin
the zone of privacy pro
tec
ted by recen
t cons
ti
tu
tional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wro
te
tha
t the Mann Ac
t (which punishes
those who engage in in
ters
ta
te sex
traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such ac
ts should be considered “wi
thin
the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)
>Demanded
tha
t we “firmly rejec
t draf
t or comba
t exemp
tion for women,” s
ta
ting “women mus
t be subjec
t to
the draf
t if men are.” Bu
t, she added, “
the need for affirma
tive ac
tion and for
transi
tion measures is par
ticularly s
trong in
the uniformed services.” (Page 218)
>An indefa
tigable censor, Ginsburg lis
ted hundreds of “sexis
t” words
tha
t mus
t be elimina
ted from all s
ta
tu
tes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mo
ther, fa
ther, sis
ter, bro
ther, son, daugh
ter, serviceman, longshoreman, pos
tmas
ter, wa
tchman, seamanship, and “
to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)
>Wan
ted he, she, him, her, his, and hers
to be dropped down
the memory hole.
They mus
t be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal s
ta
tu
tes mus
t use
the bad grammar of “plural cons
truc
tions
to avoid
third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)
>Condemned
the Supreme Cour
t’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed
tha
t taxpayer-funded abor
tions should be a cons
ti
tu
tional righ
t.
http://humanevents.com/2005/08/23/senators-overlooked-radical-record-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/📁Who are
the doc
tors 'curren
tly'
trea
ting [RBG]?
Wha
t o
ther poli
tical [former/curren
t] sr. poli
tical heads are
they affilia
ted w/?
Wha
t 'off-marke
t' drugs are being provided
to [RBG] in order
to sus
tain minimum daily func
tion?
Wha
t is
the real medical diagnosis of [RBG]?
Who is managing her care?
Who is 'really' managing her care?
The clock is
ticking.
PANIC IN DC.
Q