AG Says He Hasn't Read AZ Immigration Law

[Ghostwriter]

He has been all over TV with opinions but hasn't read a 10 page law.

http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/joshge...cfm/tag/TedPoe

[DaemonSeid]

That could be a problem

[AOII Angel]

And he did say "could" and "may" not "will". FWIW, I don't think most people commenting on the bill have read the whole thing. BTW, I believe he's had his hands full lately...anyone see the news last night?

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

And he did say "could" and "may" not "will". FWIW, I don't think most people commenting on the bill have read the whole thing. BTW, I believe he's had his hands full lately...anyone see the news last night?

I read it. I thought it was 12 pages when I did so but in any event it only took 20-25 minutes.

I would think that if an AG is going to go on TV and comment and state opinions on a states law he should at least read the damn thing.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I read it. I thought it was 12 pages when I did so but in any event it only took 20-25 minutes.

I would think that if an AG is going to go on TV and comment and state opinions on a states law he should at least read the damn thing.

Has he gone on TV specifically to comment on it or did he go on TV at which time someone asked him about it? There is a difference.

[starang21]

i read the law and the changes made to the law. i wonder if it is still lawsuit worthy.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I would think that if an AG is going to go on TV and comment and state opinions on a states law he should at least read the damn thing.

I'm agreeing with you.

[HDL66]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

And he did say "could" and "may" not "will". FWIW, I don't think most people commenting on the bill have read the whole thing. BTW, I believe he's had his hands full lately...anyone see the news last night?

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Has he gone on TV specifically to comment on it or did he go on TV at which time someone asked him about it? There is a difference.

Are you serious? The Attorney General of the United States commenting on an extremely controverial bill which he has not read and you are giving him a pass because his "hands are full" and he 'didn't go on TV to specifically comment on it?' He was on the Sunday morning talk show circuit, for Pete's sake. It was certainly one of the topics he was going to be asked about it. A sophomore debate student would have read the bill and been more prepared.

But, oh, that didn't stop Holder from commenting!!! Quoting from his interview with David Gregory:

We are considering all of our options, and we--one of the things that we are thinking about is the possibility of filing, filing a lawsuit. But we're considering all of our options at this point. Whether or not it is something that we can file a lawsuit based on federal pre-emption grounds, whether we think that the law as enacted could violate federal civil rights statutes.

I guess I am setting the bar pretty high, but I think the Attorney General could read a 10 page bill before he comments in a national public forum that the administration is considering filing a lawsuit on it!!! He probably didn't read it so he could feign ignorance about the fact that it closely mirrors the federal law (which the federal gov. refuses to enforce, BTW.) This administration would rather use inuendo about the "the possibility of leading to racial profiling" (Holder's words) to stir up racial tensions. IMHO, a pure political play.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I read it. I thought it was 12 pages when I did so but in any event it only took 20-25 minutes.

I would think that if an AG is going to go on TV and comment and state opinions on a states law he should at least read the damn thing.

^^THIS.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by HDL66

Are you serious? The Attorney General of the United States commenting on an extremely controverial bill which he has not read and you are giving him a pass because his "hands are full" and he 'didn't go on TV to specifically comment on it?' He was on the Sunday morning talk show circuit, for Pete's sake. It was certainly one of the topics he was going to be asked about it. A sophomore debate student would have read the bill and been more prepared.

But, oh, that didn't stop Holder from commenting!!! Quoting from his interview with David Gregory:

We are considering all of our options, and we--one of the things that we are thinking about is the possibility of filing, filing a lawsuit. But we're considering all of our options at this point. Whether or not it is something that we can file a lawsuit based on federal pre-emption grounds, whether we think that the law as enacted could violate federal civil rights statutes.

I guess I am setting the bar pretty high, but I think the Attorney General could read a 10 page bill before he comments in a national public forum that the administration is considering filing a lawsuit on it!!! He probably didn't read it so he could feign ignorance about the fact that it closely mirrors the federal law (which the federal gov. refuses to enforce, BTW.) This administration would rather use inuendo about the "the possibility of leading to racial profiling" (Holder's words) to stir up racial tensions. IMHO, a pure political play.

How I read this is that he will be looking at the bill to determine if it violates the federal law. How does this say, "I read the bill and don't agree with it?" It doesn't bother me in the least that he hasn't read it yet. It's a bill for a state that hasn't even been enacted that is currently being challenged by people from within the state. He has quite a bit of time to work on more pressing matters that have to do with our country as a whole and not just the State of Arizona. Would I like him to get to the bill? Yes. Is it job #1? Nope.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Has he gone on TV specifically to comment on it or did he go on TV at which time someone asked him about it? There is a difference.

If he is commenting on something he hasn't read that is not good, regardless. Would you want a law enforcement official or judge commenting on a case you may be involved in with no real knowledge of that case? Could this not lead to prejudice against your case? He is the AG of the USA for goodness sakes.

News Conference and an interview on TV which I have seen a clip on YouTube with Jake Tapper on This Week. It is about 4 mins 30 secs in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH1PBl6UpOQ

Here is info on the news conference from CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6437887.shtml

^^^^Angel - I love you, dear but here's your Kool-Aid.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

If he is commenting on something he hasn't read that is not good, regardless. Would you want a law enforcement official or judge commenting on a case you may be involved in with no real knowledge of that case? Could this not lead to prejudice against your case? He is the AG of the USA for goodness sakes.

News Conference and an interview on TV which I have seen a clip on YouTube with Jake Tapper on This Week. It is about 4 mins 30 secs in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH1PBl6UpOQ

Here is info on the news conference from CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6437887.shtml

^^^^Angel - I love you, dear but here's your Kool-Aid.

Wow, I'm so underwhelmed. He said he thinks we should approach immigration as a national process and not a state-by-state process. He said he's concerned about the possibility of profiling, but also said that he doesn't feel that the intent is racist. Whether or not he read the bill, that's pretty benign and goes along with the federal stand point that immigration is a federal issue. He did not say the law was or was not legal, did not say whether or not he would oppose it, did not say whether or not the AG's office would file a suit against AZ. Yet again, this is a bunch ado about nothing. Not drinking any Kool-aid either. Just not looking for any conspiracies around every corner. Hell, if I was drinking the kool-aid, I'd be mad that he hadn't read the law and already filed the lawsuit!

[PiKA2001]

I always believed that opposition to this bill was based on political motives instead of the actual law itself. This just confirms it for me.

I think the worst part of this is that he formulated his opinion about the bill from What he saw on TV....NEXT!

[starang21]

i wonder if obama read it before he called it misguided. and i wonder if he still feels it's misguided.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Wow, I'm so underwhelmed. He said he thinks we should approach immigration as a national process and not a state-by-state process. He said he's concerned about the possibility of profiling, but also said that he doesn't feel that the intent is racist. Whether or not he read the bill, that's pretty benign and goes along with the federal stand point that immigration is a federal issue. He did not say the law was or was not legal, did not say whether or not he would oppose it, did not say whether or not the AG's office would file a suit against AZ. Yet again, this is a bunch ado about nothing. Not drinking any Kool-aid either. Just not looking for any conspiracies around every corner. Hell, if I was drinking the kool-aid, I'd be mad that he hadn't read the law and already filed the lawsuit!

Okay, then why would he trash it prior to reading it? Why comment at all? Wouldn't it be better to say, "I haven't read it and will wait to form an opinion after I have studied the law"? This is not like me or you commenting on something. This is a law enforcement leader who should be informed.

No conspiracy just bad governance from the AG.

[Kevin]

There's a strong argument that the legislation is preempted by federal legislation. How good is that argument? We shall see I think.