I was listening to "The World" on my local NPR affiliate today when the announcer said that the White House had stressed that the Schiavo travesty bill wasn't intended as any sort of precedent, but was narrowly tailored to fit a set of extraordinary circumstances.
And that got me to thinking ... when have I heard Republicans say that before?
My answer after the flip.
For the record, here's what Scott McClellan said at today's gaggle:
www.whitehouse.gov :
Q Why not grant all parents that right? Why limit it to this one case?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that previously Anne, when you brought it up. This is an extraordinary circumstance. And this law was narrowly tailored. It didn't create any new substantive rights under federal or state law, but it is an extraordinary circumstance....
And here's what it reminded me of:
Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
Yup, the infamous "don't you dare try to hold us to it" clause in Bush v. Gore.
So I guess that this is what's known in poker as a "tell"--a signal to the other players about the cards you're holding, and what you're up to. When Republicans say the "circumstances" are "complex" or "extraordinary," and they don't intend a decision to apply to other cases, it means they know they're on legal quicksand, and are just playing something for momentary partisan advantage.