What did Arlen Specter say to Alberto Gonzales?
April 28, 2009 7:58 PM Subscribe
What did Arlen Specter say to Alberto Gonzales?
During an appearance before Congress, Alberto Gonzales gave an answer that strained the bounds of credibility a little too far even for senators, at which point an incredulous Arlen Specter said something to him like: "I must warn the Attorney General that he may be X-ing his Y."
I remember not having previously heard the phrase "X-ing his Y", and that its meaning (from context) seemed to me to mean something like "doing something that it's anathema for lawyers to do".
Also, I remember that it seemed odd in some way, but I don't remember exactly how - perhaps something along the lines of understanding that's what Specter meant, but not understanding how the phrase he spoke means that.
Does anyone know what he said? Am I correct in its general meaning? Is it a standard legalistic phrase, or was it just something Specter said? If the former, what does it mean more specifically?
Sorry for the lack of details, but this has been percolating in my subconscious for quite a while, and burst out today, I assume prompted by the recent Specter news.
During an appearance before Congress, Alberto Gonzales gave an answer that strained the bounds of credibility a little too far even for senators, at which point an incredulous Arlen Specter said something to him like: "I must warn the Attorney General that he may be X-ing his Y."
I remember not having previously heard the phrase "X-ing his Y", and that its meaning (from context) seemed to me to mean something like "doing something that it's anathema for lawyers to do".
Also, I remember that it seemed odd in some way, but I don't remember exactly how - perhaps something along the lines of understanding that's what Specter meant, but not understanding how the phrase he spoke means that.
Does anyone know what he said? Am I correct in its general meaning? Is it a standard legalistic phrase, or was it just something Specter said? If the former, what does it mean more specifically?
Sorry for the lack of details, but this has been percolating in my subconscious for quite a while, and burst out today, I assume prompted by the recent Specter news.
Perhaps this exchange?
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I assume you are well-prepared for this hearing...posted by chrisamiller at 8:06 PM on April 28, 2009
ALBERTO GONZALES: I prepare for every hearing, Senator.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Do you prepare for all your press conferences? Were you prepared for the press conference where you said there weren’t any discussions involving you?
ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, I’ve already said that I misspoke. It was my mistake.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I’m asking you: were you prepared? You interjected that you’re always prepared. Were you prepared for that press conference?
ALBERTO GONZALES: Sir, I didn’t say that I was always prepared. I said I prepared for every hearing.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, then, I’m asking you: do you prepare for your press conferences?
ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, we do take time to try to prepare for the press conference.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: And were you prepared when you said you weren’t involved in any deliberations?
ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, I’ve already conceded that I misspoke at that press conference. There was nothing intentional. And the truth of the matter is, Senator, I—
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Let’s move on. I don’t think you’re going to win a debate about your preparation, frankly. But let’s get to the facts. I’d like you to win this debate, Attorney General Gonzales.
ALBERTO GONZALES: I appreciate that.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: I’d like you to win this debate.
ALBERTO GONZALES: I apologize, Senator.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: But you’re going to have to win it.
Response by poster: No, this one:
posted by Flunkie at 8:10 PM on April 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —I particularly like that "Um."
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
GONZALES: Um.
posted by Flunkie at 8:10 PM on April 28, 2009 [3 favorites]
Is it possible he meant jurisdiction? As in he's not really the person to make that interpretation.
Either that or intuition?
posted by jourman2 at 8:16 PM on April 28, 2009
Either that or intuition?
posted by jourman2 at 8:16 PM on April 28, 2009
Here's a video of that glorious exchange in case it might help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY5BwMjpUOI#t=1m56s
posted by aiko at 8:20 PM on April 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by aiko at 8:20 PM on April 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Perhaps "treading on your" means "getting dangerously close to", i.e. Gonzales was getting dangerously close to being interdicted (in some sense, perhaps figurative)?
posted by Flunkie at 8:23 PM on April 28, 2009
posted by Flunkie at 8:23 PM on April 28, 2009
This may be a long shot, but Specter (a lawyer) may be referring to a somewhat archaic term for a prohibitory decree. A prohibitory decree, a/k/a, an interdiction, is defined by Black's as "the act of forbidding or restraining." Specter's usage, if this is what he truly meant to say, is correct but awkward (some would say tortured, but that's a whole 'nother issue).
The Constitutional reference to habeas could be said to be in the form of an interdiction, as the Constitution creates not a positive right to habeas, but prohibits the abridgment of the habeas right. The existence of the right is implied by the express prohibition against its denial. What Specter seems to be saying to Gonzales is that Gonzales is so far out there that Gonzales is tripping over both common sense and the interdiction against limiting habeas in trying to make his logic work.
I know that's a long way to go to make the quote make sense, but it works. I'm guessing it's more likely that Specter really meant to say "interpretation."
Great question. It's good to get the old brain cells working on stuff like this.
posted by webhund at 8:45 PM on April 28, 2009
The Constitutional reference to habeas could be said to be in the form of an interdiction, as the Constitution creates not a positive right to habeas, but prohibits the abridgment of the habeas right. The existence of the right is implied by the express prohibition against its denial. What Specter seems to be saying to Gonzales is that Gonzales is so far out there that Gonzales is tripping over both common sense and the interdiction against limiting habeas in trying to make his logic work.
I know that's a long way to go to make the quote make sense, but it works. I'm guessing it's more likely that Specter really meant to say "interpretation."
Great question. It's good to get the old brain cells working on stuff like this.
posted by webhund at 8:45 PM on April 28, 2009
Is it possible that Specter is referring to the interdiction of habeas corpus which Gonzales helped engineer against enemy combatants? And that Specter, in his line of questioning, has backed Gonzales into the corner where he the next thing that he says will lead him to directly contradict the very thing he had declared as not valid, i.e., "tread on your interdiction"? (And he's violating common sense by stating that, while the Constitutions forbids taking something away, that doesn't mean that it is thereby granted.)
That makes the most sense to me.
posted by hippybear at 10:12 PM on April 28, 2009
That makes the most sense to me.
posted by hippybear at 10:12 PM on April 28, 2009
There is no such legal phrase, and I don't think (efforts above notwithstanding) that it can be attributed to a misphrasing of any other legal term or phrase. I think it was just a political malapropism.
posted by megatherium at 4:27 AM on April 29, 2009
posted by megatherium at 4:27 AM on April 29, 2009
I've honestly always assumed Specter was being wickedly clever and "treading on your interdiction" meant "stepping on your dick".
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 10:38 AM on April 30, 2009
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 10:38 AM on April 30, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
The rest of my questions still apply: Am I correct in its general meaning? Is it a standard legalistic phrase, or was it just something Specter said? If the former, what does it mean more specifically?
posted by Flunkie at 8:05 PM on April 28, 2009