A Tempest Over Tequila
Yes, we’ve heard all about “Tequilagate.” And we think it’s kinda stupid.
Yesterday the Supreme Court kicked off October Term 2006 with oral argument in Lopez v. Gonzales and Toledo-Flores v. United States. (Yeah, you guessed it — cases about the intersection of criminal and immigration law.)
From Linda Greenhouse’s account of the proceedings:
Part of the argument was spent debating whether, for technical reasons, Mr. Toledo-Flores’s appeal was moot, as the government argued. His lawyer, Timothy Crooks, said the case was not moot because under the conditions of his “supervised release” in Mexico, Mr. Toledo-Flores must observe certain rules, including abstention from alcohol.Justice Antonin Scalia replied that this was not a burden with sufficient real consequences to keep the case alive.
“Nobody thinks your client is really, you know, abstaining from tequila down in Mexico,” Justice Scalia said.
We laughed at that. But had we been in the courtroom at One First Street, we would have sheepishly morphed our laughter into a cough. Per Dahlia Lithwick, who was there:
Nobody laughs. But then, nobody winces or flinches, either. Somehow, a remark that would have flattened us had a Souter spoken it is just a solid day at the office for Scalia. I have no idea where the tequila comment should register on the nation’s macaca-meter. The more interesting question is about Scalia’s deliberate carelessness with language….
Umm, is this really the issue? Or is it just that Nino is one of the nine who hasn’t been brainwashed by the PC police? Accusing Justice Scalia of exhibiting “carelessness with language” strikes us as a bit odd. He is generally agreed to be the finest prose stylist on the Court, even by those who disagree with him vehemently.
Tony Mauro reports that some people took offense at the quip:
The comment raised eyebrows in the audience and offended some who were told about the remark afterward on the grounds that it perpetuates stereotypes about Mexicans.
We disagree. What stereotypes about Mexicans? Isn’t it the Irish who are the alcoholics — or maybe the Russians? The Mexicans, they’re just lazy.
Okay, we jest. But seriously, Justice Scalia’s comment is no more offensive than if the case involved an Irish petitioner and he referred to Guinness, a Filipino petitioner and he referred to San Miguel, or a French petitioner and he referred to Bordeaux wine. Tequila is simply “Mexico’s national drink” (see here).
More explanation from the informative Viva Tequila website:
Tequila is a Mexican liquor distilled from the fermented juices obtained from the hearts of blue agave plants grown in the Tequila Region. The liquor gets its name from the town of Tequila located in the state of Jalisco where production started more than 200 years ago…The brand “tequila” is controlled by the Mexican government. Anybody interested in its production must comply with strict regulations set forth by the Secretary of Economy (formerly Secretary of Industry and Commerce) who has delegated authority upon the Tequila Regulatory Council…
Justice Scalia mentioned tequila simply because it is a leading liquor in Mexico, where the petitioner currently resides, and where he’s serving out his term of supervised release. There is no ethnic slur here. People need to chill.
Update: More great examples of national beverages in this comment.
Further Update: Some excellent thoughts from Orin Kerr, plus relevant excerpts from the transcript. (SCOTUS transcripts are now available online, for free, shortly after the argument. YAY!)
Justices Ponder Conditions for Automatic Deportation [New York Times]
Tequila Mockingbird: Justice Scalia opens the 2006 term with a bang [Slate]
Scalia’s ‘Tequila’ Remark Raises Eyebrows During Immigrants’ Rights Argument [Legal Times]
Viva Tequila [official website]
(19) Comments
Comments
Agreed. As I took Scalia's comment, he meant that the petitioner might drink tequila because he is in Mexico, not because he's Mexican. As you say, it's the national drink. Had the exact same Mexican person been deported to the Czech Republic, Greece, France, Italy, Norway, Russia or Ireland, I suspect Scalia would have said not tequila, but absinthe, ouzo, wine, grappa, aquavit, vodka, or whiskey/Guinness, respectively, because that's what's available. He's making the unobjectionable statement that there's tequila in Mexico, not that Mexicans drink tequila.
But I guess we'll never know precisely what was in his head, and Scalia's detractors are more interested in being his detractors than in thinking honestly about anything he says.
"[A] remark that would have flattened us had a Souter spoken it..." Actually, the opposite is true. If Souter had said it, we probably would have ignored it.
It's only because it was said by Scalia -- a justice who is assumed (wrongly) to harbor some kind of racial animus -- that people are spinning it as a slur.
People please: step down off your high horses and stop micro-analyzing every word someone says. Society is much to sensitive these days. We're a nation of wimps and it's getting worse thanks to the brow raisers!
Scalia's comment was harmless!
Oh dear. Conservative commentary on legal gossip, I can stomach. Whole posts devoted to Scalia apologism.....less so.
I was at the argument, and there were a few snickers. I didn't notice any raised eyebrows.
Mexicans are not lazy, that's black people. Mexicans are beaners, lawnmowers, and the like. You need to get your stereotypes straight.
Maybe watch a little Mind of Mencia while combing through the volumes of legal news you comment on so far after the fact as to render you irrelevant.
You're out of your league in this forum. I've given you a chance, because I liked your old blog. But in your own words, think The Daily Show. They'd never get the stereotypes wrong. Maybe you should go work for Carney at dealbreaker for a while. They are doing a decent job over there for the Spiers media empire.
Double miaow!
Hater: a simple Google search on the phrase "lazy mexican" gives 13,900 hits, whereas the phrase "lazy blacks" totals 2,230. "Drunk mexicans" yields 5,500, whereas "drunk blacks" gives you 1,200. "Drunk on tequila" + "mexican" comes in at 1,590, while "drunk on tequila" plus "blacks" equals 551. My point? All things considered, common usage indeed suggests the existence of the stereotype of "DRUNK LAZY MEXICANS WHO ENJOY TEQUILA". Hope that helps! P.S. Your little critique couldn't have anything to do with your being jealous of David's complete and utter dominance of the blogosphere in this niche, could it? Don't hate him because he's beautiful.
Anonymous 10:55: "Oh dear. Conservative commentary on legal gossip, I can stomach. Whole posts devoted to Scalia apologism.....less so."
Well, you may have a point, but I think it's likely nobody would have noticed this if they hadn't had the transcript in front of them. (Way to go, guys. Oh yeah, I'm sure that makes the Justices *really* eager to get cameras in the courtroom now!) Besides, you know as well as I do Scalia could say "the sky is blue" and he'd have ten different environmental groups and the Society for the Prevention of Discrimination Against the Color Blind all up his nose about it holding a press conference demanding a retraction.
Anonymous 9:30:"[A] remark that would have flattened us had a Souter spoken it..." Actually, the opposite is true. If Souter had said it, we probably would have ignored it."
Truer words were never spoken. I adduce as proof Souter's remarks from 9.26 to 10.02 in the oyez.com recording of Murphy v. United Parcel Service 527 U.S. 516 (1999). Particularly his snappy rejoinder to Scalia. Uh...yeah. Somehow Dahlia and Nina missed that one. ROTFLOL!
Umm -- is Lat's doppelganger Schopenhauerian? (Where is the umlaut key when I need it?) The rah-rah posts which Sch. make in Lat's defense demand some sort of analysis.
I'm as liberal a lawyer as they come. And I'm forced to agree that Scalia is relentlessly principled and funny as hell. Read Blakely v. Washington for evidence of the "principled" part and its footnotes for evidence of "funny as hell." Also agree that the remark simply chose tequila rather than another beverage (the context compelled the client imbibing as a premise).
There, now don't say those liberal lawyers who count themselves among Scalia's detractors can't admit his virtues. He has many.
I will confess to occasionally pulling a "Lee Siegel / Michael Hiltzik," by filing anonymous comments. Not working for an MSM blog has certain benefits. So consider yourselves on notice. Any comment you read here might very well be me.
But, believe it or not, I am not Schopenhauerian -- although I would like to meet this person (and perhaps offer him/her a guest column).
I really hate how this site and its predecessor so frequently confuse legal news with conservative propaganda. But I guess that's the beauty of a blog, and why I can elect not to read it.
"Mexicans=lazy" is a harmful and false stereotype.
"Mexicans drink tequila" is neither harmful nor false. Tequila is, uh, a drink from Mexico.
Mexicans also eat Mexican food and tend to speak Spanish. Often they are Catholic. They are usually from the south of the United States. I have bravely posted these comments anonymously so I won't be put to the wall when the Revolution comes.
Still anonymous here, and not David. A helpful point about themes here, what kind of tabloid DEFENDS potentially scandalous behavior? You should be taking full advantage of this sort of useless yet slightly inciting stuff. I reccomend finding an "expert" who will comment on how Scalia's comments signal the end of his rein. (Think Mel Gibson booking photo).
At least attribute it to a mysterious "baby bump."
Dalia Lithwick is as good as any to stand in for the whole Once and Future Language Police.
You'll give a column to someone who says "neener neener"????!!!!
"But, believe it or not, I am not Schopenhauerian -- although I would like to meet this person (and perhaps offer him/her a guest column)."
Ohmigod!! Why, thank you! Jeez, I feel like I just hit the lottery, was crowned Miss America, and won an Emmy all at the same time!! Unfortunately, as my critics and admirers alike will surely agree, I'm not ready for prime time. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I'm afraid I'm going to have to do all my attention-whoring on a strictly amateur basis.
One significant problem is that most of my best material would be quite unprintable and in the poorest of taste. In fact, I know I probably deserve a good punch in the nose for having the audacity to even think it, much less repeat it in such august company. One of these days I'd snark on the wrong person, and POW!! RIGHT IN THE KISSER!!
However, I could be persuaded to change my mind if you convince the Supreme Court press office to swing me an ATL press pass to cover oral argument as your official correspondent. (Standing around on the godforsaken sidewalk in the dark for five hours in crappy weather for a seat in the peanut gallery gets kind of old, you know?) Be sure and tell them I insist on sitting right between Nina Totenberg and Linda Greenhouse, okay? The ATL readership deserves the very best. (Somehow, I know "when hell freezes over" is the credited respose on that one... LOL!!)
Anyway, thanks again. :)
Do you really want to give this fruit a forum?
What's the point of getting your bloomers in a bunch right after he said he can't do it? Goodness. One wonders how some people around here even passed the LSAT at all with such poor reading comprehension skills.
I'd rather be a fruit than a vegetable. Truth be told, you sound like more of a starch.
Buh-BYE, Starchy!