To understand Trump judicial pick Neomi Rao, consider her writing on dwarf-tossing
Conservative and liberal commentators seem to agree that Rao’s dwarf-tossing arguments illuminate her worldview and judicial philosophy. But not everyone agrees on whether Rao’s position is defensible or being genuinely represented by the press. For example, R Street Institute policy fellow Shoshana Weissmann in Reason on Nov. 26 noted, “If you only read about Rao’s work in Mother Jones…you might have thought that Rao simply has a niche affinity for dwarf tossing.”
Rao has argued in two law review articles and a post on the conservative law blog Volokh Conspiracy in 2011 that banning dwarf-tossing is problematic because it’s the kind of legal situation that pits cultural values against constitutional rights. Viewed in that light, she didn’t write a defense of the dwarf’s right to be tossed so much as a defense of an individual’s liberty to make personal determinations of dignity, according to Weissmann, which extends far beyond the narrow issue of throwing little people around for sport…Similarly, Weissmann points out, Rao’s criticism of the the US Supreme Court’s support for same-sex marriage is that the law isn’t policy-based. Instead, she disputes the court’s preoccupation with dignity as opposed to rights. In Rao’s view, a right to same-sex marriage, rather than a respect for ”the dignity of having your personal relationships recognized by the federal government” makes a more sound legal basis.