That’s it? That’s your hearing?

The Senate Judiciary Committee has just completed a hearing — if you can call it that — on the Schumer-Rubio (et al.) immigration reform legislation. The hearing lasted for about two hours and was limited to one round of questions for two witnesses — economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin (who supports the bill) and Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (who opposes it).

Both witnesses were good. But, as Kirsanow testified, they had received the nearly 900-pager only about two days ago, and thus lacked anything close to enough time to review and analyze it sufficiently.

Given this fact, and the brevity of the proceeding, the hearing was a farce.

In fairness to the Committee, Janat Napolitano was also schedule to appear, but was involved instead in dramatic events from Massachusetts. She will be rescheduled. In addition, if I understand the situation correctly, there will be more witnesses on Monday — still way too early for anyone to have thoroughly digested and analyzed the bill.

All in all, therefore, the Judiciary Committee will proceed to mark-up the vital Schumer-Rubio (et al.) legislation without the benefit of meaningful hearings. This is not what Rubio promised and is not the way to legislate.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.