Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, March 13, 2019

The Senate on Wednesday confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee to replace Brett Kavanaugh on a high-profile appeals court, despite concerns about her past writings on sexual assault.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This minority woman's nomination to the judiciary by President Trump serves as further proof of his strong support for inclusion of qualified people of any race, sex or creed and completely refutes the already defunct liberal lies regarding Trump being a racist.

#1 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-03-13 04:29 PM | Reply

but has never tried a case in state or federal court.

Which raises HUGE red flags for me, since that should be a pre-requisite to sit on any court IMO.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-03-13 04:55 PM | Reply

Addressing Trump from the Senate floor, Durbin asked: "Isn't there a good Republican conservative somewhere who's actually been in a courtroom, actually made an appearance in a case, maybe even tried a case or filed a motion and would know a courthouse if they saw it and on not on TV? Is that too much to ask for a lifetime appointment to the second-highest court in the land?"

#3 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-03-13 09:10 PM | Reply

As a Yale undergraduate Rao suggested that intoxicated women were partly responsible for date rape.

That alone qualifies Rao in the dotard's eyes.

#4 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-03-13 09:27 PM | Reply

If we need an Amendment to the Constitution, every appointment should be for a term of office approved by Congress for all appointees and no lifetime appointments is a good idea.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-13 09:41 PM | Reply

#4

Rein,

Please point out where, in her own words, she actually said that. I'll wait patiently.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-13 10:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

While nothing will ever be as disgraceful as the Kavanaugh hearing, Garcie's claim the Rao nomination clears Trump of any allegations of racism is absurd. Trump is obviously preparing for another campaign, but his greed, narcissism, history, vulgarity and racism are a matter of public record. His refusal to acknowledge basic facts of science, law or common courtesy should disqualify him from any public service, let alone the Presidency. There is no good outcome from the Trump Presidency.

#7 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-13 10:51 PM | Reply

As a Yale undergraduate Rao suggested that intoxicated women were partly responsible for date rape.

Please point out where, in her own words, she actually said that. I'll wait patiently.

"I've been to a lot of fraternity parties on this campus. It has always seemed self evident to me that even if I drank a lot, I would still be responsible for my actions. A man who rapes a drunk girl should be prosecuted. At the same time, a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober. And if she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice. Implying that a drunk woman has no control of her actions, but that a drunk man does strips women of all moral responsibility. It creates a culture of victimization in which men are prowling and uncontrollable, and women are weak and helpless.

www.documentcloud.org

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-13 10:56 PM | Reply

#8

Thank you, Tony.

What she actually said isn't even close to Rein's characterization of what she said.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-14 09:18 AM | Reply

While nothing will ever be as disgraceful as the Kavanaugh hearing

Agreed. The stunts the Democrats pulled were beyond disgusting. Granted, after Garland the gloves came off. I get it. But still...

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-14 09:19 AM | Reply

#1 is the funniest post i've seen in months.

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2019-03-14 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What she actually said isn't even close to Rein's characterization of what she said.

It's EXACTLY what Rein characterized! (...intoxicated women were partly responsible for date rape.)

At the same time, a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober. And if she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice. Implying that a drunk woman has no control of her actions, but that a drunk man does strips women of all moral responsibility.
In no unequivocal terms Rao placed partial RESPONSIBILITY for the actions of the man upon the woman as though her level of sobriety alone could stop or lessen the man's ability to date rape. Rape is an act of violence, not logic or reason and unless any woman can physically thwart an attempt from a man she bears no responsibility for his actions in this regard.

The counter of her statement is "that a good way to facilitate a potential date rape is for the woman to get drunk" - as though her drunken state bears responsibility for something another person does to her after the point she loses sobriety. If a woman trusts a man that she chooses to be with and he violates that trust by raping her because she drank too much it is the man's fault 100%, not the woman's.

Words have meanings and this isn't even controversial. This is why Rao apologized for what she wrote and tried to re-contextualize her comments. Her words place partial, qualified responsibility upon women for what men do to them and that's what she plainly meant to say.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-14 10:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tony,

She, like so many others, cautions women from putting themselves into dangerous situations.

If I were to drive down into one of the 'hoods in Detroit at night in July, get out of my car and just start wandering around...while wearing a $2,000 suit, all sorts of expensive jewelry and carrying an iPhone X in my hand and I proceeded to get mugged the fault would lie with the guy(s) who mugged me. In spite of that, would you make the case that I put myself into a potentially dangerous situation by my actions?

This is common sense stuff.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-14 10:24 AM | Reply

Also, keep in mind that she wrote that when she was in college - she would have been 19-20 years old at the time. Is it possible, just maybe, that her views have become a bit more nuanced as she's gotten older?

At least she never put white shoe polish on her face. That would have been disqualifying for sure.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-14 10:27 AM | Reply

This is common sense stuff.

Yes it is and you need to use some. Read the totality of her comments and it couldn't be plainer that she intended to place blame for date rape upon the woman victimized by it if the woman wasn't sober at the time she was attacked. Your analogy is based on the fact that in the perception of the criminal, the perpetration of their acts are made easier due to the inebriation of the victim. And while this may be true it still doesn't mitigate that the criminal already was either looking to or intended to commit criminal acts regardless. So why does the victim bear responsibility for that? I guess you're saying don't advertise yourself as a mark and you'll lessen your probability of becoming a victim.

Your analogy would make more sense if she recommended that women stay away from men altogether if a woman decides to get drunk, but that isn't what she stated, is it? You still haven't answered the question what is a woman to do - stone-cold sober - if a man decides to date rape her and she cannot thwart his attempt? Does she still bear partial responsibility for not having the premonition that her date was a potential violent criminal? So if she was with the same guy and drunk, does that somehow shift the equation against her as Rao intimates or make it more likely she can physically stop the assault? Of course not, that is assuming facts not in evidence.

That's the bottom line. period.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-14 10:48 AM | Reply

Replace the word "blame" with "partial responsibility."

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-14 10:49 AM | Reply

Tony, as you're parsing what she said and interpreting it the way you are, do you think women's rights have gone backward with this confirmation?

And if you do, is it for any other reason other than that comment?

#17 | Posted by eberly at 2019-03-14 11:31 AM | Reply

Tony, as you're parsing what she said and interpreting it the way you are, do you think women's rights have gone backward with this confirmation?

First, I'm not parsing her words. What they mean are obvious by how she uses them and defines the circumstances. I disagree with her assertion that a date rape victim is partially responsible for the actions of their assailant based on the victim's state of sobriety. If I walk into a bank and no one is there to stop me from going into the vault and taking whatever I want, the absence of security does not mitigate the fact I chose to steal from the bank. The bank could certainly make it harder for me to succeed in robbing them, but there still is no guarantee that I wouldn't have stolen if that was my intent when I entered the bank. The same is true for a rapist if his goal was to take something if it wasn't offered voluntarily. Why should a woman lay a psychological burden upon already aggrieved victims for the sake of a common sense point that may or may not have altered anything and might have possibly led to more/worse physical injuries?

Her point is that woman should be responsible for their own actions and I have zero disagreement with that sentiment. I disagree when she lumps said responsibility onto the actions of another wholly independent agent. Rape is not the action of the woman. That is intellectual blameshifting and it has no place in the context of responsibility for the actions of another person.

And no, I do not believe women's rights have gone backward because of her, but I truly do not know enough about this nominee to speak about more than the topic at hand.

#18 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-14 01:14 PM | Reply

Jeff. Learn how to understand English. It is blindingly clear what she is saying.

This is a step back for women.

#19 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-03-14 10:44 PM | Reply

I read it, Bruce.

She's being cautionary - which is sagely advice.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-14 11:23 PM | Reply

Whether it's Tucker Carlson or Rao's comments, if it involves rape, you know Jeffj will defend it.

#21 | Posted by blackheartsun at 2019-03-14 11:57 PM | Reply

Wait, there's more. Ms. Rao, also writes the following:

"In order to exonerate the man involved, others will similarly point to her willing return to his room {{where alleged date rape occurred}} or her decision to drink excessively as an indicator of consent."

SOOOO combined with the following statement:

" At the same time, a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober. And if she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice. Implying that a drunk woman has no control of her actions, but that a drunk man does strips women of all moral responsibility."

It is pretty clear that Ms. Rao is arguing that a woman is partially responsible for any act upon her body if she is drunk, because she chose to drink.

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-03-15 12:18 AM | Reply

#20 she is saying you are at fault for the rape

#23 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-03-15 06:50 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort