JBAER at POLITICS.TAMU.EDU
Thu Nov 29 12:26:45 PST 2001
Well. . .let's see.
EV:I'm curious why there should be any "ridicule" of Gonzales here. He
certainly didn't say gender; whether or not we suspect that gender profiling
is going on, his statement is certainly not opening himself up to "ridicule"
on this score.
I agree. My comment wasn't about gender.
EV: Nor did he say "national origin." Those words, according to the
transscript, never came out of his mouth. And I don't quite see how we can
say, as Lynne does, that "'country of origin' was meant in terms of
nationality, but Gonzales could argue he meant 'country from which they
migrated', which might be different from nationality or ethnicity."
Yes, it might be, but I think this interpretation is torturing the words,
bending over backward to find an innocuous interpretation. We are under no
obligation to interpret his words charitably.
EV: So how exactly did Gonzales "open himself up to so much ridicule," as
opposed to just opening himself up to be misquoted by people who misheard?
Because he implied that discrimination based on national origin was less
problematic that discrimination based on race. My undergraduate students in
con law know better than that!
More information about the Conlawprof