If you read the whole story and place the quote in context, you will find out that the judge said that person who is unconscious or who is conscious but so intoxicated she doesn't know what she was doing cannot consent, but a person who is drunk but still in touch with reality can consent. That is an entirely correct statement of the law.

In the case in question, the judge was given two snapshots. At one point in time, the complainant was clearly intoxicated but conscious, walking, arguing with her friends, and calling a cab. Eleven minutes later, she was found unconscious with most of her clothes off. Judge Lenehan found, quite reasonably, that at the earlier time the complainant was capable of consent but at the later time she was not. The reference to "a drunk can consent" applied to the complainant's state at the earlier time, not the later one.