Politico goes to a Romney spokesman, Rick Gorka, and tries to nail down the candidate's response to the Supreme Court immigration decision, and it's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall:
...QUESTION: Does (Romney) support the law as it was drafted in Arizona?OK, I guess it's understandable that Romney took days to respond to President Obama's change of policy regarding undocumented immigrants who came here as children -- perhaps Romney simply didn't expect that move, and he needed a few days to pore over the focus-group results and the poll crosstabs. We know he doesn't have inherent beliefs about what's right and wrong in this situation (or in a lot of other situations), so we know he's motivated solely by what he thinks will help him win, and he didn't know what that would be in this unexpected situation.
GORKA: "The governor supports the right of states, that's all we're going to say on this issue."
QUESTION: Does he have a position on the law, or no position?
GORKA: "The governor has his own immigration policy that he laid out in Orlando and in the primary, which he would implement as president which would address this issue. Whereas Obama has had four years in the office and has yet to address it in a meaningful way."
QUESTION: But does the Governor have a position on the Arizona law besides supporting the right of states?
GORKA: "This debate is sprung from the president failing to address this issue, so each state is left and has the power to draft and enact their own immigration policy."
QUESTION: But the Arizona law does very specific things, does the governor support those things that the Arizona law does?
GORKA: "We've addressed this."
QUESTION: What is his position on the actual law in Arizona?
GORKA: "Again, each state has the right within the Constitution to craft their own immigration laws since the federal government has failed." ...
QUESTION: Is it fair to say that he has no opinion on the Arizona law?
GORKA: "Look, again, I¹ll say it again and again and again for you. The governor understands that states have their own right to craft policies to secure their own borders and to address illegal immigration." ...
But the Supreme Court agreed to take this immigration case more than six months ago. Romney can't fake a set of core principles with that much lead time? He can't anticipate the possible rulings and craft a response?
How long would he stall if he were president and, say, there was the equivalent of a 9/11 or Katrina? Would he need six months and counting before he had a few talking points ready, much less a plan of action?
UPDATE: BuzzFeed now has a short piece titled "Romney Criticizes Immigration Ruling," but what Romney is quoted as saying is that, um, "I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states, not less." To do what, Mitt? Or not do? Any chance we'll ever find out what you believe?