Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
That the bill might lead to discrimination, or that people think it will, is not the test. As judge Bolton said, the Federal Government must demonstrate that the AZ law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument. (Of course, she contradicted her own directions and ruled on hypotheticals.) The fact is, almost any bill, or law can, and has led to accusations of discrimination. If the test for a law to exist is that it cannot potentially lead to "discrimination", a whole lot of ordinances have to be revoked.
The potential for a law to lead to discrimination does not necessarily lay in the law, but in its application by individual enforcers. The fault is usually not in the law, but in racially biased individuals. Rather than blaming and disavowing valuable law, when it is applied in a discriminatory fashion, the individual who misuses the law should be prosecuted--don't blame the law.
So it is not necessarily a contradiction if supporters of the AZ law think it might lead to discrimination but still support it.
|
In this case you have a target demographic that's pretty well defined and a law with the potential to impact the daily life of a very large number of legal citizens and non-citizens who appear to fit the profile.
I'd think the risk factor here is extremely high and more than a simple perhaps.
-spence
Threaded Mode