When lawmakers in Alabama were debating a bill to oppose illegal immigration, a couple of Democrat representatives who opposed the bill made some ugly remarks about Hispanics.
That would hardly seem like a reason for a federal judge to put the law on hold. After all, it was opponents of the law -- not supporters -- who made the remarks.
And yet U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson said part of the reason he issued a preliminary injunction against portions of Alabama's law was that the ugly comments by opponents of the bill suggested the bill itself had racist motives.
How? If racist comments came from people who were against the law, how does that indicate that those who supported it were motivated by racism?
It seems there's always some excuse for judicial activism.