23

A recent article about Neomi Rao's nomination to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals claims that Rao has a record of defending dwarf-tossing.

Conservatives are discouraging talk of Rao as a future justice, recognizing that it will only draw more scrutiny of her record, which has recently been criticized over controversial positions like her defense of dwarf-tossing and past skepticism of date rape claims.

Does Neomi Rao have a record of defending dwarf-tossing? Also, how did that end up in court?

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
elliot svensson
  • 2,883
  • 13
  • 38
  • 2
    FYI, the Washington Post article linked in the article you linked to provides the info you want. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/how-a-trump-judicial-nominee-reignited-the-debate-over-dwarf-tossing/2019/01/22/65fd885a-0d21-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html – UnhandledExcepSean Feb 05 '19 at 19:48
  • @UnhandledExcepSean, I haven't read WP much since they enacted their paywall. – elliot svensson Feb 05 '19 at 19:49
  • 4
    @elliotsvensson The Washington Post paywall is trivially bypassed by opening their pages in an "incognito"/private browsing session. – Bryan Krause Feb 05 '19 at 21:50
  • 6
    No tag wiki for dwarf tossing? Are you expecting pixies to create the wiki for you? – Andrew Grimm Feb 05 '19 at 22:18
  • @AndrewGrimm, sadly, I don't know how pixies create tag wikis. – elliot svensson Feb 05 '19 at 22:35
  • 9
    I'm not impressed that much research went into this question. They provided a link, and many newspapers have this story. – Oddthinking Feb 05 '19 at 22:36
  • 1
    @Oddthinking, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. – elliot svensson Feb 05 '19 at 22:37
  • @Oddthinking, also, we were early: there was a lot of reporting in a very few minutes. – elliot svensson Feb 05 '19 at 22:44
  • 12
    @elliotsvensson: You didn't even follow the link provided, and quote from that. We shouldn't allow ourselves to turn into a "Could someone bypass this paywall for me, please?" site. (I don't see this as extraordinary, but that's opinion.) – Oddthinking Feb 05 '19 at 23:05
  • 16
    If someone supports the legality of BDSM (which can involve consenting people hurting each other during sex), does that mean they "support beating up your partner during sex"? – Obie 2.0 Feb 06 '19 at 01:25
  • @Obie2.0 the issue is more about whether or not you should be able to do that in a live performance for money. – DavePhD Feb 06 '19 at 12:49
  • The link in the quote has the suffix `?utm_term=.71e0a9186ea6`, which is used to track people who click the link. Usually I edit posts to remove tracking tags, but that particular tracking tag is part of a quote... I mean, realistically probably doesn't matter much either way, just weird to consider if faithfully quoting a source ought to maintain the source's quote's intent to perform a quasi-malicious action. – Nat Feb 06 '19 at 18:37
  • @Oddthinking, see comment above by Nat. – elliot svensson Feb 06 '19 at 18:41
  • 2
    Just so I don't overstate it, the concern about the tracking tag is utterly trivial, as it should just inform the target website about where the link was originally obtained from. More of just a weird thought experiment to consider in the general case. I mean, on the one hand, the tracking tag is arguably a legitimate mechanism that ought to be respected as part of the source's intent; on the other, there's the readers' potential desire to not be tracked. – Nat Feb 06 '19 at 18:44
  • @Nat Even URLs that are produced via the "Share" link on Stack Overflow answers contain the user ID of the person sharing the link, though that can be changed freely if so desired. – JAB Feb 07 '19 at 00:18

1 Answers1

77

Rao wrote the blog article Substantive Dignity-Dwarf-throwing, Burqa Bans, and Welfare Rights as well as more-formal articles cited therein:

In a much-discussed French case, Mr. Wackenheim, a dwarf, made his living by allowing himself to be thrown for sport. The mayors of several cities banned dwarf tossing events. Mr. Wackenheim challenged the orders on the grounds that they interfered with his economic liberty and right to earn a living. The case went to the Conseil d’Etat (the supreme administrative court), which upheld the bans on the grounds that dwarf throwing affronted human dignity, which was part of the “public order” controlled by the municipal police. The Wackenheim case demonstrates how a substantive understanding of dignity can be used to coerce individuals by forcing upon them a particular understanding of dignity irrespective of their individual choices.

...

The issue is not whether laws prohibiting dwarf throwing, burqa wearing, prostitution, or pornography may be desirable social policy. Rather these examples demonstrate that the conception of dignity used to defend such policies is not that of human agency and freedom of choice, but rather represents a particular moral view of what dignity requires. These laws do not purport to maximize individual freedom, but instead regulate how individuals must behave in order to maintain dignity (and in the case of criminal prohibitions, stay out of jail).

For the related academic article see Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law Notre Dame Law Review volume 86, pages 183-271, particularly the "Dwarf Throwing" section on pages 226-227.

So in conclusion, she defended allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown, to be thrown, as opposed to outlawing the practice.

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • 3
    TL;DR no, he doesn't support it. You should add it to your answer. – JonathanReez Feb 05 '19 at 22:53
  • 58
    I think it is worth clarifying the difference between "supporting dwarf-tossing" (as the title of the question claims) and "rejecting laws which ban activities based only on moral views of dignity, such as anti-dwarf-tossing laws". (e.g. I do not support people using the word "learnings" where they mean the word "lessons" - it is undignified - but I reject any proposed laws against it.) – Oddthinking Feb 05 '19 at 23:10
  • 14
    @JonathanReez she supports allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown to be thrown. – DavePhD Feb 05 '19 at 23:31
  • 1
    @JonathanReez Given the reactions to and headlines about this nomination, it seems that Rao’s position is open to interpretation, probably depending on one’s political affiliation or inclination (as sad a state of affairs as that is). Providing the context and Rao’s actual words on the topic and letting the reader decide what her position is makes a fine answer, IMO. (+1) – HopelessN00b Feb 05 '19 at 23:35
  • 16
    She supports freedom, even if that includes allowing dwarf throwing. Whether or not she personally supports the practice is unknown. – JonathanReez Feb 05 '19 at 23:35
  • 1
    @HopelessN00b by default the answer should be "no, she does not support it". If there's a clear quote from the judge on this subject, then it could become a "yes". – JonathanReez Feb 05 '19 at 23:36
  • 40
    The real answer should be "we don't know." She could view dwarf-throwing as repugnant, or she could view it as innocuous. Either would be consistent with the position she expressed. – Obie 2.0 Feb 06 '19 at 01:26
  • 13
    @Obie2.0: However, I do think that it's relevant to answer that while her personal opinion on dwarf tossing is unknown, her legal opinion is very much known: she is **against a blind ban**, and argues that it hinges on the consent of the dwarf being tossed (that is not to say that dwarves were being tossed without their consent in the past ;)). – Flater Feb 06 '19 at 11:22
  • 3
    I think the wording in the body of the question is a lot easier to address. "Did she _defend_ dwarf-tossing?" I think that would be a "yes, if consensual". – JMac Feb 06 '19 at 12:33
  • @JMac yes, the claim says "defense of dwarf-tossing" so I changed everything to match the wording of the claim. – DavePhD Feb 06 '19 at 12:48
  • 5
    Oh the temptation to google "non-consensual dwarf tossing" is strong. – Myles Feb 06 '19 at 14:08
  • 6
    This isn't really support for dwarf tossing. This is standard legal academic discourse analysing the concepts and thought processes that lead people to support or not support bans on consensual dwarf tossing. – Marcin Feb 06 '19 at 16:24
  • @JonathanReez If you don't know whether she supports it, then saying "she does not support it" _by default_ is exactly as misleading as saying "she does support it". You should not apply any "defaults" but instead speak to the facts that are known. – Lightness Races in Orbit Feb 07 '19 at 12:02
  • @LightnessRacesInOrbit we do not know whether or not Mr X beats his wife every night. Therefore we must say that "Mr X may or may not be beating his wife every night". See the problem with this argument? – JonathanReez Feb 07 '19 at 17:51
  • @JonathanReez No, because that's literally exactly what we must say. – Lightness Races in Orbit Feb 07 '19 at 17:54