Donald Trump nominated Neomi Rao to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. The judgeship is so important that it is often a stop on the way to the Supreme Court, for which Rao is also reportedly being considered should a position become available during Trump’s first (and hopefully only) term.
Buzzfeed reports that Rao has had some startling views in her past, on everything from LGBTQ rights to date rape.
In pieces reviewed by BuzzFeed News that Rao wrote between 1994 and 1996 — she graduated from Yale University in 1995 — she described race as a “hot, money-making issue,” affirmative action as the “anointed dragon of liberal excess,” welfare as being for “for the indigent and lazy,” and LGBT issues as part of “trendy” political movements. On date rape, Rao wrote that if a woman “drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.” [Emphasis added.]
Utterly disqualifying, even if it comes from her college days. Just disgusting to the core. And if you think maybe we should be focusing on her record as a judge, welp—she has no record as a judge.
Rao has never been a judge, and absent any record on the bench, her writings as a student and later as a prominent law professor, which she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, are expected to feature prominently in the fight over her nomination.
Nan Aron, president of the liberal advocacy group Alliance for Justice, which first highlighted Rao’s college writings to BuzzFeed News, said Rao’s columns were “consistent with the administration’s support of candidates who make racially insensitive statements and comments hostile to sexual assault survivors.”
She may not be a big fan of LGBTQ equal rights, but Rao does have a record of lobbying for individual rights—specifically the right to toss dwarfs in Florida bars against velcro walls. I really wish I were kidding. From Mother Jones in November 2018:
… Trump’s nominee to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the powerful DC Circuit ... has written at least two law review articles and a blog post in which she defended dwarf-tossing.
Especially popular in Florida bars, dwarf-tossing is the strange spectacle in which competitors throw Velcro-clad little people at a wall or mattress like a shotput. The longest toss wins. The sport has been banned in some American states and parts of France, where a judge upheld such bans because of “considerations of human dignity.” Rao considers these laws an affront to individual liberty that fails to recognize the right of the dwarf to be tossed. In one article, she wrote that the decision in France upholding the dwarf-tossing ban was an example of “dignity as coercion” and that it “demonstrates how concepts of dignity can be used to coerce individuals by forcing upon them a particular understanding of dignity.”
Dwarf-tossing is an odd cause for a federal judicial nominee to champion. Even weirder, Rao has invoked it repeatedly in her writing to make the case that a misguided focus on human dignity is leading US courts to run afoul of the Constitution in decisions that advance LGBT rights and racial equality. These are areas of the law where, she argues, judges are letting the pernicious influence of international human rights law creep into their jurisprudence at the expense of American exceptionalism and personal freedom.
Folks, it will sadly take decades to undo the damage done to our judiciary long after Trump is gone from the White House. Democrats should be ready to take the helm and right the ship from day one in January 2021. Until then, we have to work to make sure the blue wave rolls through the House, the Senate, and the White House in 2020, regardless of the nominee.