Thread by @senatorshoshana

So I'm about to do a thread supporting dwarf tossing and a judicial nominee, so you'r gonna wana stick around for this. You're welcome /1

Ok. So a Mother Jones article attacks Neomi Rao for supporting it - but actually Rao makes good points. Also the author begins IN EARNEST criticizing @JusticeWillett for his pro-bacon tweets, which tells you everything you need to know. /2

She's right - if it's consensual, what's the problem? volokh.com/2011/05/18/sub…

Also I love economic liberty but this is literally the weirdest/most fantastic time to invoke the "right to earn a living"

She gets into similar issues with the burqa ban, re dignity

I mean Reo is brilliant here! "As with other similar theories, it is a short step from having substantive ideals of dignity to coercion of individuals in the name of these ideals." YES!!!!! volokh.com/2011/05/18/sub…

Rao's concerns of "dignity" becoming coercion are well-founded and insightful.

See how I led you all from dwarf tossing to philosophy?

But yeah the whole critique of Rao is a weird mess, littered with scaries and non-sequiturs.

LAST note. This is how the MoJo article ends

But it makes no sense. The author defends the constitutional challenge to same sex marriage bans (challenging a state LAW) while criticizing Rao for not caring about the rule of law because she opposes consensual dwarf testing bans

But challenging a law is a part of the system of law that makes sure laws are just. One need not even agree with the challenge in order to agree that it can be challenged. The author understands this with marriage but not with other things.

I mean the author is basically all OH YOU WANA CHALLENGE SOME LAWS WHY NOT ALL LAWS ALSO YOU WANT TOO FEW LAWS ALREADY