There's an old Rodney Dangerfield joke that goes something like this: "I went to see my psychiatrist the other day and he told me I was crazy. I asked for a second opinion and he said, 'OK, you're ugly, too!' "

The joke is similar to the request made by Attorney General Eric HolderEric Himpton HolderThe Hill's Campaign Report: Coronavirus forces Democrats to postpone convention Biden associates reach out to Holder about VP search Big stimulus packages required, but they risk political blowback MORE, who, after being told by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel that legislation before Congress granting voting rights to the District of Columbia was unconstitutional, "ordered a second opinion from other lawyers and determined that the legislation would pass muster."

That Obama administration lawyers, agreeing with a similar conclusion made during the Bush administration, ruled that the matter being ruled unconstitutional did not matter.

As reported by The Washington Post, that such legislation would run "afoul of the Constitution" could complicate an upcoming House vote and make the measure more vulnerable to a legal challenger.

We're all familiar with Democrat complaints that the DoJ in the Bush administration was solely motivated by politics. Yet when the attorney general himself demands a second opinion because the legal opinion of DoJ lawyers doesn't match the political priorities of President Obama, the Democrats remain silent.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether the D.C. voting rights legislation before Congress is constitutional, but to essentially ignore the legal opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel — an opinion the attorney general sought — and demand a second, more politically palatable, opinion shows no respect to the Constitution or the voters.