I think that this is the most pathetic attorney general in the nation’s history:
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.”
And yet, he was putting the Justice Department into motion to legally challenge it, and both he and the Secretary of State have been criticizing it. They’re both lawyers. It’s not a long bill. He should resign.
[Update a few minutes later]
Heather McDonald on one particularly idiotic claim about the bill:
It should not be necessary to rebut Councilman Reyes’s hysterical fabrications, but for his fellow members of the L.A. City Council, who compared Arizona’s law to Nazi Germany and to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and for all those other grandstanding politicians who are busily denouncing Arizonans’ racism, a primer is apparently needed.
If Mr. Reyes was planning to fly to Arizona from L.A. (pre-boycott, of course), he would need either his driver’s license or his passport to get on a plane. So we had better add the TSA to the list of Holocaust-in-waiting perpetrators. The only way he could be “deported” is if he is in fact an illegal alien, and before that happens, there will be plenty of “questions asked” and other legal wrangling, thanks to decades of work from the immigration-law industry. The only way the police would have a chance to discover that he is an illegal alien is if he has given them lawful grounds to stop him, such as running a red light, driving drunk, or acting suspiciously enough to suggest imminent law-breaking — and then has given them further ground to suspect that he is in the country illegally, such as possessing no valid identification.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Reyes presents any form of valid government ID during the course of a lawful police stop, he will be presumed to be in the country legally, and there will be no inquiry into his immigration status. So if, after getting through the brownshirts at LAX, Mr. Reyes continued to carry his California driver’s license, he would have nothing to worry about in Arizona.
Since Mr. Reyes and all the other boycotters are so convinced that the Arizona police are itching to abuse their rights under SB 1070, they would make a much better case against the law by actually traveling to Arizona and demonstrating to the world their mistreatment at the hands of the police. Until then, their unhinged denunciations of the law reveal only one thing: They are terrified that it will work.
Yup.
[Update a while later]
Holder profiles Arizona. Don’t hold your breath waiting for complaints from the New York Times, though.
Rand: He should at least read it.
Rand, why should he bother to read it. He isn’t opposing it on any real, legal standing. He, acting on behalf of the Obama Administration, is opposing this law for political purposes, period. They really don’t care very much about the law or constitution, but want to get maximum political gain from this grandstanding.
The “96 rule” seems amusingly accurate.
It does, but you posted this in the wrong thread.
Holder is not only short on intellect, but on morals. His role in the Marc Rich pardons should have disqualified him from a job as deputy DA in Provo, Utah much less U.S. Attorney General.
How can the law lead to “racial profiling” if it’s explicitly forbidden in the law?
Titus;
Well, the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbade quotas, but there they are.
“How can the law lead to “racial profiling” if it’s explicitly forbidden in the law?” They don’t expect people to actually obey the law. (Projection) They expect people to treat the law the same way they would.
AOG,
The Left did not allow that kind of reasoning wrt “death panels” so they cannot use that argument.
To be clear, we’re not allow to draw obvious conclusions. Holder should know that.
A lawyer not reading the law before giving an opinion, what next a Treasury Secretary who doesn’t pay taxes? er, nevermind.
How much more of this should they take? Not one bit, if either AZ senator had any stones, he’d go straight to the senate floor with this and demand Holder’s removal. Not reading a law before giving a legal opinion is legal malpractice. That’s neglect of duties and grounds for impeachment.
If we could impeach anybody, 99% of them (politicians and judges) would be gone. They play the power game well.
Titus, Thomas;
I have come to adopt the rule that if you want to know what the Modern American Left intends to do, look at what they pre-emptively object that conservatives will do. They’re so parochial they can’t conceive of others not being exactly like them.
AOG, Understood. I hope you know that I’m being mostly facetious in my attempt to hold Leftists to their principles by demonstrating that they, in fact, have none. (Will-to-power crowds-out everything else, you see…)
So it’s another case of projection. The left can slander the police of AZ before a law has been broken or misapplied. It’s a good observation.
Yeah, Ken. They get to relive their hippie days when they called them “pigs.” Once a Gramscian, always a Gramscian…