Holder admits: No, I haven’t read the Arizona law I’ve been dumping on

posted at 7:20 pm on May 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

I don’t know what to say. Actually, wait — yes I do. Click here and see for yourself how long Arizona’s new law is. You don’t even have to read all of it; most of the contentious stuff is in Article 8, Section B on page one. (Which has since been amended to eliminate racial profiling concerns, don’t forget.) This guy’s been out there dumping on it left and right and he couldn’t devote 10 minutes to critically considering what he’s been dumping on. But then, why should he? This is pure election-year politics from the White House, nothing more or less. Why expect the Attorney General to behave any differently?

“I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the 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,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn’t yet read the legislation.

“It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law,” the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

I can’t find a standalone clip but you can watch by clicking the image below and skipping ahead to 2:45:05. Here’s the money question, prompted not just by Holder’s ignorance but the fact that Hillary criticized the statute without having read it either: Are they deliberately not reading it so that they have an excuse to walk back their criticisms later if this gets too hot politically? “The law wasn’t properly explained to me initially” is a lot more forgivable than “I read it but it turns out I was too dumb and/or demagogic to understand it.” This is nothing but buck-passing, isn’t it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Holder:
“I’m incompetent, and I dare you to do anything about it, racist!

Cybergeezer on May 14, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Holder too:
I will do unlawful things and put you in jail for it.

moyeti on May 14, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Answer, please choose one:

A) I’m a really stupid lawyer and I mouth off on laws I haven’t read all the time.

B) I’ve been ordered by The One to say really dumb things in order to get Hispanics all “wee-weed” up so we can pander to the illegals for the sake of the Democratic Party.

C) My Guatemalan gardener told my Honduran nanny that my Mexican handyman said that it was a bad law and I will pay a lot more if I have to hire American citizens.

shorebird on May 15, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Holder and Gibbs are interchangeable for expediency’s sake….Ummm,uhhh,well,uhhh,ummmm

Nalea on May 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM

I haven’t read this article; I don’t have to, to know Holder is being directed by the White House.
HOLDER IS A GOOD SOLDIER FOR OUR FUHRER, OBAMA!

Cybergeezer on May 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Yeah, what another crapfest! And Conyers . . . . Did I spell that right?? Anyway, Conyours . . . . What`s up with that dude? Someone needs to change his batteries and fast. Or not. Probably not. Just let him wind on down . . . .

Sherman1864 on May 16, 2010 at 3:55 AM

There’s this thing called the Supremacy clause. Have you heard of it?

crr6 on May 13, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Yes, and of concurrent jurisdiction also. The question will be whether congress impliedly preempted the field regarding immigration or whether AZ’s law conflicts with federal law. And “conflicts with,” regarding preemption cases, is generally used in the “true conflicts” sense, where the two schemes can’t be complied with simultaneously.

The embarrassment for Holder, et al. is not that AZ law conflicts with federal enforcement, but that it conflicts with its non-enforcement. It will be interesting to hear the argument that congress preempted a field by effectively abandoning it.

Barnestormer on May 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3