“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.”

—–U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee regarding Arizona’s controversial illegal immigration enforcement statute.

The President’s top lawyer cannot just express off-the-cuff opinions based on hearsay and second-hand reports as if he was sitting at a bar, shooting the breeze and munching on beer nuts. When the head of the Justice Department, not to mention one who is an African-American and presumably speaks with some moral authority on the issue of racial discrimination and civil rights, says on national T.V. (“Meet the Press”) that the law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling,” that opinion will be presumed by all hearing it to be based on something more than Katie Couric’s bias and The New York Times’ slants.  Holder is being asked to give his views because those views have perceived weight, and thus he has an obligation to make his public statements responsibly. Before “Meet the Press,” Holder had 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.  How say any of this fairly and honestly without bothering to read the bill? He couldn’t. Did he know that anyone hearing his opinions would assume that he had read the bill? Of course. Did he qualify his views by noting at the time that he had yet to read the statute? Why no…that would have made him look foolish. So he allowed those hearing, believing and being influenced by his presumed authority and expertise be misled. He lied.

It is difficult to overstate how unethical his conduct has been in this matter. Arizona is being boycotted and its economy is being harmed based on a public perception that there is something racially unjust in the bill, a perception supported by Holder’s statements based only on the opinions of others. This was irresponsible, unfair, incompetent, and stunningly lazy. If the law was important enough for him to comment on, it was important enough to take the 15 minutes—if he’s a slow reader—that it would require to read the entire law. This isn’t the health care bill. It is clear, concise, and could be read during any serious trip to the bathroom.

Believe me, I know.

Stunned by Holder’s admission, Texas Rep. Ted Poe commented, “It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law.”  It’s easy to understand, actually, if one is open to the interpretation that Holder has an integrity deficit, and is interested primarily in stirring racial and ethnic divisions for his Party’s political gain. Or if one concludes that he is incorrigibly disorganized, and tries to fake his way through the major legal issues of the day, like a law student how comes to class without having read the assignment, rather than research them seriously and subject them to objective and thoughtful analysis, like a competent and diligent attorney is supposed to do.

Those two possibilities aside, however, Poe is right: it’ is hard to understand how Holder could say what he has said without reading the law, or think it could be ethical to do so. I know we’ve all been thrilling to the spirited competition between Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Holder for “Unethical and Incompetent Cabinet Member Most Deserving to be Fired,” but alas, the contest should be over. If we can’t trust Eric Holder to read a two page law before he encourages million-dollar boycotts and riots in the streets by making negative pronouncements about it, we shouldn’t trust him about anything.