The President* Has Nominated Perhaps the First Ever Pro-Dwarf-Tossing Judge

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 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.”

In response to the questions she fielded, Rao argued Tuesday that she had also emphasized that rape is a “terrible crime” and reiterated that “no one should blame a victim.” She repeatedly said she didn’t agree with the views she espoused in college, dubbing them “cringeworthy.” Still, she appeared to maintain her larger point about sexual assault, saying, “I tried to make the commonsense observation that women can take certain steps to make sure they’re not a victim.” That thinking puts the onus of preventing sexual assault on victims, an idea that Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) pressed her on.

“We have to change the culture of sexual violence,” said Ernst, who recently spoke publicly about her experiences as a victim of sexual assault, becoming one of the highest-profile Republicans to do so. “Young women need to feel comfortable sharing the experiences they’ve endured.” Republicans argued that writings from Rao’s college days should hold less weight given the time that’s passed. But Harris noted that Rao’s recent actions as a Trump administration official could hurt sexual assault victims as well.

Rao, in her role as head of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has supported the Trump administration’s rollback of Title IX protections for victims of sexual assault on college campuses. These rules would reduce the mandatory reporting requirements institutions currently face on the matter and require live hearings on sexual assault allegations where accusers could even be cross-examined by a representative of their attackers.

The term dignity is used by the Supreme Court and other constitutional courts in other countries and that was an attempt as an academic to explain the different senses in which dignity was used in those cases.

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).

There was an individual, Mr. Wackenheim, who made his living doing that, and he said that this ban affected his dignatory interests. But, in my article, I don't take a position one way or another on these issues.