Over at Global Trade Watch's blog, Todd Tucker cites the paragraph I quoted in the last post (see the paragraph before as well), and says:
the AB ... comes pretty damn close to stating that “the design, architecture, revealing structure, operation, and application of” the FSPTCA was intended to be discriminatory, and that the policy was illegitimate.
This raises a few questions for me:
-- Is Todd right that the AB was thinking of intentional discrimination here?
-- If intentional discrimination is the standard, is that a good basis for examining "less favorable treatment"?
-- If intentional discrimination is the right standard, was it applied correctly in Cloves?
