Combined with its refusal to press charges against members of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation and fighting for a terrorist’s right to a civilian trial, the Arizona lawsuit confirms the Obama Administration’s unyielding commitment to weaken the rule of law.

The Obama Justice Department’s decision to sue Arizona for copying federal immigration law is more than just the latest example of political calculations trumping sound legal reasoning.  Combined with its refusal to press charges against members of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation and fighting for a terrorist’s right to a civilian trial, the Arizona lawsuit confirms the Obama Administration’s unyielding commitment to weaken the rule of law.
 
At first, the hyperbolic reactions by President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to Arizona’s newest illegal immigration law were dismissed by many as political posturing.  Since neither of them took the time to read the law, surely they must be pushing an agenda other than strictly legal. 
 
The political consensus saw them as trying to tie the law to racial profiling; all the better to gin up support among Hispanics for Democrats in the 2010 midterms.  After all, waving the bloody shirt of tough sanctions against illegal immigration helped swing Hispanic voters in California decisively against Republicans in the wake of Proposition 187.  Then when November’s elections are over – the thinking went – let the issue die quietly because at bottom there is no serious legal issue to be litigated with SB 1070; experts like Kris Kobach made sure of that. 
 
If that was the case then Kobach, one of the principal drafters of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, sped up the timetable.  He picked apart the Justice Department’s arguments by demonstrating that no prior case on illegal immigration supports the claim that the law is unconstitutional.  Of the five appellate circuits and 800 opinions to consider the issues the Justice Department now raises, not one offers a clear path to victory. 
 
Unfortunately, the reverse is true in the now-dormant New Black Panther cases.  According to former Justice Department civil rights lawyer J. Christian Adams, investigations into the incidents revealed a nationwide pattern of voter intimidation tactics involving racial slurs and brandished weapons outside polling places in Philadelphia and Mississippi, as well as numerous similar incidents against supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  The metastasizing evidence was certainly sufficient to merit individual prosecutions, if not conspiracy charges against the organization.  Instead, Eric Holder’s deputies decided to drop charges or plead away the cases – in one instance requiring a defendant not to brandish a weapon near a polling place until 2012; just in time for the next presidential election. 
 
Those decisions went from dubious to contemptible when Adams disclosed that his division had a “pervasive” policy of not pursuing cases featuring black perpetrators and white victims.  In testimony before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Adams acknowledged the policy was in effect in both Republican and Democrat administrations, an indication that employing non-political career attorneys hardly guarantees the equal protection of the law.   
 
And let’s not forget the now underreported embarrassment that is General Holder’s biggest mistake so far in office.  Arguing as he did that Islamist terrorists are entitled to civilian trials on American soil cuts against popular support and legal precedent.  Little did many realize that Holder was establishing a precedent all his own to apply in green-lighting this week’s lawsuit against Arizona. 
 
Make no mistake.  Obama and Holder are interested in much more than sending dog whistles to La Raza activists.  They want change.  And they’re hoping to get it from the laughably liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Arizona.  If a panel of judges does eventually deliver the legally unsupported victory Holder’s crew is looking for, some conservatives may be tempted to recycle their talking points about an out-of-control activist judiciary.  They – and the country – would be far better served if instead conservatives focused on the main enabler of activist judges: an activist Attorney General.