Not to defend Haley Barbour, but you have to give a guy a break. Like most conservatives, he was imagining a wonderful period in history that never happened. I.E. a time during the civil rights era when a bunch of white southerners banded together to fight the evil Klu Klux Klan and fight for justice for all people. It didn't happen that way, true, but at least Barbour fantasizes that it did. It is not like he is bemoaning the civil rights movement or declaring it illegal. Only Rand Paul would do that.
However, acting like this was the straw that broke the camels back in his Presidential hopes? Just look at the guy. He makes Larry the Cable Guy look like the King of England. He has about as much chance of being President as Michelle Bachmann on a bad hair day.
That brings me to racial issues in general. The conversation in the media on these issues is about as enlightening as a profile on Paris Hilton. Do they really think they are getting anywhere by focusing on the drama of race, instead of investigating the cause of racial bias? It's like they want to see a fight break out.
Law enforcement officials in Virginia can inquire into immigration status of those they stop or arrest--just as they can under a controversial new immigration law in Arizona--Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has ruled in an official legal opinion.But, but, but, wait! The Washington Post Sunday Magazine profile on Cooch portrayed him as a hero, a strong family man, a principled, authentic defender of sexual assault victims and fighter against "liberal universities," etc., etc. Which makes this latest action so out of character, and so confusing. Please explain, oh great Washington Post!
Written in response to a request for legal advice from Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William), Cuccinelli ruled that police officers and other legal authorities can look into the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested.
UPDATE: Arlington to Cooch, "Citizens living or traveling through Arlington should not be worried that our actions will be changing."
A federal judge Monday morning refused to dismiss a Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health-care law, handing the law's foes their first victory in a courtroom battle likely to last years.But it's ok if a conservative judge legislates from the bench, right?
U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rejected arguments from Obama administration lawyers that Virginia has no standing to sue over the law and no chance of ultimately prevailing in its constitutional claim.
UPDATE: State Senator and Attorney Chap Petersen weighs in:
My take on this whole episode is that the purchasing mandate (as I understand) does not take effect until 2014. There will be two elections for Congress BEFORE that time, and any future Congress has the ability to amend or even repeal the purchase mandate. Therefore, it is premature for any judge to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate, as the issue is not "ripe" for determination.Exactly, although I'd also add that this isn't really a "mandate," but a series of incentives and disincentives for people to purchase health insurance. In other words, if you don't buy health insurance starting in 2014, you will NOT be going to jail or anything like that, but will have to pay a small "fine" or "tax" or whatever to compensate for your decision to go uninsured. How is that a "mandate," exactly? This entire lawsuit - and this entire line of "reasoning" - is utterly ridiculous.
UPDATE #2: Cooch explains his "reasoning" after the flip.