A blogger over at The Gormogons noticed something odd about today's New York Times editorial on national immigration policy:
The idea that the federal government can commandeer states’ resources for its enforcement schemes seems ripe for legal challenge. And it’s wrong to make state and local police departments the gatekeepers of immigration enforcement. It should not be up to local cops to drive federal policy by deciding which neighborhoods and people are the focus of their crackdowns.
It's not so surprising that the Times would be opposed to efforts to make states comply with enforcement of federal immigration laws. But here's the New York Times editorial from a mere 10 days ago, decrying the conservative Supreme Court justices more expansive view of states' rights:
States’ rights has been a politically charged concept for even longer. It was a basis for secession and then for years of Southern defiance on segregation. Now it is used as an excuse for rejecting national immigration policy.
That's an ideological gymnastics routine so impressive even the East German judge would be forced to give it a 10.