The congressmen told HuffPost last week that the DOJ's interpretation of the amendment was "emphatically wrong," sentiments they repeated in their letter to Holder.
How wrong that sentiment would turn out to be.
Emotion would say it is wrong but sentiment was not a factor; this was a cold-eyed, business decision.
It is hard to imagine, so many years later, how strange and rebellious, how simply wrong, such sentiments sounded.
Now, don't get me wrong, such sentiments are certainly appreciated and warranted given the persistent gender disparities that exist at all levels of society, which no doubt have influenced Hillary Clinton's political experiences significantly.
They were wrong, but the sentiment was clear.
"There's nothing wrong with honest sentiment," he says.
When, for instance, the military dictator's cousin announces "I will not superimpose American mores on a dignified foreign people", the line got loud guffaws in Minneapolis: as delivered by James Fox, who looks like an English country gent who has wandered into the wrong play, the sentiment falls flat as a Shrove Tuesday pancake.
When I reminded him, in a recent conversation, about his inopportune claim that he could have bested Giuliani's performance during the crisis, he turned to me with an innocent smile and asked what could possibly be wrong with the sentiment that "anyone who runs for mayor should aspire to do as well as or better than his predecessor".
Wrong anthem, right sentiment.
