A meme that is getting out of control

Mark Tapscott says that Pelosi and Reid filed an amicus brief "against GOP's self-executing rule in 2005." The case he cites is Public Citizen v. U.S. District Court, 486 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir 2007). Andy McCarthy uncritically jumps aboard, noting that Public Citizen lost the case, and others have similarly leapt before looking

But, folks, stop! Read the case! Public Citizen is not, that is, not a case about a self-executing rule, and even the text that Tapscott excerpts says so! Yes, Public Citizen challenged the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 on the grounds that its "enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution"—but not because of a procedural innovation in the House vote. The challenge rested on the fact that "the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate." That is a totally different issue.

Tapscott's post is like saying that Mitch McConnell can't criticize the pledge of allegiance ruling, because he filed a lawsuit against BCRA. I mean, it's all the first amendment, right? Likewise, just because a lawsuit implicates Art. 1 § 7 does not mean that it's about self-executing rules. There are a lot of issues that arise from one text.

There are many valid issues to be hashed out about what the Democrats are doing and how they're doing it. Please can we not make and perpetuate schoolboy errors that discredit the opposition.

Post facto:
Slaughter: dumb but constitutional (3/17/10)