He does not agree with either law – but has pitted them against each other…
I’m sorry but his position is just bogus—including that some improvable (and IMO decades out of currency) idea that a law had racist motive behind it the courts can legislate by knocking it down.
Because there might be documentation of racism on the issue in the 1920s is no reason for striking down a law from the 1970s.
*unprovable*