How could the Attorney General of the United States malign a state law as raising profound constitutional questions, imply that the lawmakers who drafted it are racists, and direct a Justice Department review of the law without having read the law?
If you thought Mr. Holder’s stubborn refusal to speak the words “radical Islam” was bad during yesterday’s House testimony, get this one: “I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the [Arizona immigration] law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is.”
Bear in mind that, contrary to Obama era federal legislation that runs into the thousands of pages, the Arizona statute (SB 1070) is only about 17 pages long, the provisions about which controversy has been stoked run only a few short paragraphs, and the few passages in issue have been amended (by HB 2162) to make crystal clear that the law will only apply in the case of a lawful “stop, detention, or arrest” by law-enforcement — i.e., it would no longer apply in the case of any “lawful contact” by state authorities (as the statute previously read), even though, as I explain here, there was nothing wrong with that prior articulation.