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?