Additional Titles









Why Teen Girls Seek Abuse









Marc H. Rudov
October 4, 2008

Juris Contemptus

On the evening of October 2, 2008, Senator Joe Biden debated Governor Sarah Palin at Washington University in St. Louis. This sole matchup of the VP candidates was designed to measure their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, it was yet another opportunity for Biden to expose his ideological and unconstitutional bias towards women. He didn’t disappoint.

Among other accomplishments, Biden bragged to Palin that he had authored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). No response from Palin. No response from moderator Gwen Ifill. But, that’s not surprising. Have you ever heard — just once — any law professor, politician, or talkshow host publicly challenge Joe Biden on this pernicious, misandrist, unlawful legislation-turned-industry? Never: invented rights for women are off the table.

VAWA is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which mandates that no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Accordingly, there is nothing — nothing — in the Constitution, expressed or implied, giving women any preferences over men. Yet, VAWA does exactly that: it provides domestic-violence protections and benefits exclusively to women. This is hypocrisy, pandering, and juris contemptus; amazingly, Americans accept it.

Joe Biden, who teaches a seminar in constitutional law at Widener University School of Law, professes to believe in the Equal Protection Clause, as evidenced by this exchange with Gwen Ifill about gay rights:

GWEN IFILL: The next round of — pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Sen. Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

JOE BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair. It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

Psychological Demons

So, if Joe Biden believes the Equal Protection Clause is valid for gays, why does he not believe it valid for heterosexual men whose wives and girlfriends punch them? Because Joe Biden grew up with an abusive sister who was allowed to hit him at any time with impunity. He internalized her abuse and somehow grew to see men as villains.

Frankly, I don’t care about Biden’s psychological demons; I do, however, care about his power as a US senator to use those demons to write laws — in concert with his legislative, judicial, and executive colleagues — that destroy my rights. His desire and ability to ignore the Constitution, when he sees fit, makes him a danger to all men.

Senator Biden is not alone in turning a blind eye to female-on-male violence. Recently, I appeared on a Dallas radio talkshow to discuss this topic — because of Macy’s misguided misandry campaign. A male caller berated me for not being man enough to take punches from women. That’s what many boys, including Joe Biden, are taught. Consequently, this double standard is reinforced endlessly in TV sitcoms and movies, where it is common and acceptable for women to hit and assault men.

America perversely believes that men hitting women is tragical while women hitting men is comical — even trivial. America is wrong, and Joe Biden is wrong. The Equal Protection Clause represents that hitting is wrong, regardless of who throws the punch.

Judicial Philosophy

Joe Biden exposed more of himself to Sarah Palin in this exchange with Gwen Ifill near the debate’s end:

GWEN IFILL: Final question tonight, before your closing statements, starting with you, Sen. Biden. Can you think of a single issue — and this is to cast light for people who are just trying to get to know you in your final debate, your only debate of this year — can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?

JOE BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was — had been a good student. And it didn’t take me long — it was hard to change, but it didn’t take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference. That’s why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don’t like and the American people wouldn’t like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties. And so that — that — that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that’s why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it. But I did change on that, and — and I’m glad I did.

Once again, Joe Biden exposed himself and his personal agenda of giving consent only to judicial appointments who espouse his ideology and judicial philosophy, who will write opinions he likes.

Judges are supposed to be apolitical and stick to interpreting law as written. But, Joe Biden sees the US Constitution as a political document that he can use to further his causes. So far, nobody has stopped him.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

The voters of Delaware can’t get enough of Joe Biden, and they keep reelecting him as proof. But, that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to put him in the White House.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Ask any cop who gets a 911 call for domestic violence. He’ll tell you that, regardless of who threw the punch, in most cases the man is going to jail. If the cops discover afterwards that the woman’s accusation was false, they will NOT prosecute her. When you ask yourself how that can be, think Joe Biden.

Joe Biden exposed himself to Sarah Palin and, once again, to the rest of us. Worse, he’ll get to do more of it because America likes his perversion of justice against men. Does this include you?

2008 - Marc H. Rudov - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality and author of 90+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at

Radio Show: TheMarcRudovShow












Frankly, I don’t care about Biden’s psychological demons; I do, however, care about his power as a US senator to use those demons to write laws — in concert with his legislative, judicial, and executive colleagues — that destroy my rights.