mr. speaker , i yield myself 1 1/4 minutes to deal with two arguments that have been presented here as precedents . 
this is an unprecedented piece of individual case decision . 
one , we are told , well , we did this previously with civil rights . 
after years of determining and establishing that there was a discriminatory pattern , we made an exception . 
the rule remains that states decide these kinds of decisions ; but because there was an overwhelming showing of a pattern of discrimination based on race , outlawed specifically by an amendment to the constitution , we made an exception . 
there is no showing here of any such pattern of discrimination . 
secondly , we are told this is just a general principle like habeas corpus . 
i have to ask people on the side who are pushing this , if this is such a good idea , why is it limited to this case and why do you say it is not to be a precedent ? 
if , in fact , it is to be the rule that people should have this appeal , why do you limit it to only one individual ? 
that suggests that this is a response to a particular dispute . 
you are responding to a particular dispute because it did not come out ideologically and for whatever reason you say you wanted . 
but if it is a principle , why is it written as a bill applying only to these individuals , and it specifically says it can not be a precedent ? 
clearly , this is an individualized response to a controversy that attracted attention , and if you believed in the principle , you would have made it uniform . 
