Special pleading is the logical fallacy in which on cites something as an exception to a general rule or principle without justifying the exception.
Here’s my question. How do you distinguish between “a poor choice of words” and actual bigotry, as Geoffrey Stone and Eric Seagall do in their defense in the New York Times of Dianne Feinstein’s apparent indictment of Catholics in her questioning of judicial nominee Amy Barrett? Isn’t using the wrong words whatever one’s intent now being proclaimed as wrong? Aren’t they making an exception in the case of Sen. Feinstein? Or Catholics?
Easy enough, folks on your side “misspeak”, while the other side(s) always speak in demonic and reveal their true nature. So, of course, Stone/Seagall are making an exception for their tribal elder, Feinstein.
Feinstein’s primary sin was asking a question in the form of talking about herself. Her secondary sin, if her intent was to probe an issue in which the nominee had already indicated that there is a line in which a judge should volunteer recusal, was not to ask her questions about that line, but accuse her of breaking it.
Personally, I don’t like all of the dog-whistle discussions, it’s fueled by and fuels paranoia. Feinstein thinks the nominee is an ultra-conservative, she disagrees with her ideologically, but otherwise does not have an objection to her on the basis of experience, temperament or criminal record.