• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Federal Judge Biatchslaps Buckwheat

Mike

Well-known member
Again. :lol:

Judge undercuts Obama on housing discrimination, rebukes Tom Perez
The Washington Times | November 3, 2014 | Stephen Dinan


A federal judge overturned the Obama administration’s “desperation” move to try to find more ways to prove discrimination in housing in a decision Monday that also delivered a searing rebuke to Thomas Perez, a Cabinet official whom liberals are pushing to be the next attorney general.

Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that the administration cannot rely on “disparate impact” to judge discrimination, dealing a blow to civil rights groups that said the analytical tool gave them more room to file discrimination cases.

Potentially just as important for President Obama’s postelection moves was the rebuke Judge Leon delivered to Mr. Perez, whom he accused of gaming the legal system, timing cases and arranging a settlement in order to keep the Supreme Court from issuing a ruling that would have undercut the administration’s discrimination argument.

Judge Leon called that “particularly troubling.”

In his ruling, Judge Leon said the administration’s bid to establish disparate impact as a legitimate measure of discrimination showed “hutzpah (bordering on desperation).”

“This is yet another example of an administrative agency trying desperately to write into law that which Congress never intended to sanction,” Judge Leon wrote in a scorching opinion that described Obama administration attorneys’ arguments as “nothing less than an artful misinterpretation” of the law.

Disparate-impact; legal theory relies on racial statistical disparities in lending, housing, or other business practice without having to show evidence of actual discriminatory intent. These pages have long argued that this was never contemplated by the 1968 Fair Housing Act and is also unfair. There may be many reasons for a racial disparity in home loans—for example, financial qualifications—that have nothing to do with discrimination. Yet businesses routinely settle when hit by disparate-impact claims because the reputational cost of fighting is too great.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
That disparate impact is the sham the statists always try to pull. Imagine if the era would have been adopted.
 

Latest posts

Top