U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Worse than Obamacare: Housing Case Lets Feds Target ‘Unconscious’ Racism
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... eds-target-unconscious-racism/
Published: Jun 25, 2015
Author: Joel B. Pollak
Post Date: 2015-06-25 19:07:05 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 1504
Comments: 13
Like the opinion in King v. Burwell, in which the Court effectively rewrote the plain language of the so-called Affordable Care Act, in Texas Housing the 5-4 majority decided that Congress had allowed claims of housing discrimination to be brought based on population statistics, when in fact it has never done so. Now, plaintiffs do not need to show there was actual racial discrimination, or an intent to discriminate. Instead, they can just point to the racial makeup of a neighborhood and infer that discrimination must have happened in order to bring a lawsuit and force communities to re-engineer themselves. The Court comforts itself by claiming that racial quotas still cannot be used to integrate communities. In fact, it has weaponized racial quotas in the hands of the federal government. It is perhaps just a coincidence that the Texas Housing decision comes as the Department of Housing and Urban Development has announced a policy designed to pressure wealthy communities to build “affordable” housing in their midst. The goal in Texas Housing, however, is not just to diversify neighborhoods, but to uncover what Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, calls “unconscious prejudice.” The dissent, written by Justice Samuel Alito, points out the absurdity of using “disparate impact” as a measure of racial discrimination. By the same logic, he writes, minimum wage laws must be racist, because they can be shown to have a disproportionate negative on hurt young black males, who are priced out of the labor market. Alito also notes that neither the 1968 Fair Housing Act, nor its 1988 amendments, allowed “disparate impact” to be evidence of racial discrimination. Yet that is how the Court has interpreted the statutes, on the argument that disparate impacts might be evidence of racial discrimination. That may be reasonable in cases where money is not a main factor–like college admissions, for instance, where the fact that Ivy League universities admit Asian-American students at a lower rate than other schools makes for a possible case of discrimination. It is not reasonable, however, to use such statistics when the underlying factor is money–when there are some neighborhoods that are simply more expensive than others. The courts cannot be expected to rearrange the socioeconomic structure of society–except, perhaps in the fevered imagination of a young radical named Barack Obama, circa 2001. How bad is this decision? The federal government expected to lose–so much so, in fact, that it spent years settling cases on “disparate impact” before they could reach the Supreme Court, lest that tool of intimidation be taken away. The Court has now affirmed one of the federal government’s most abusive tactics: the threat of racial discrimination lawsuits. And the biggest losers, Alito points out, are the poor, because now local efforts to improve poor neighborhoods can be blocked by lawsuits alleging racial discrimination when the rent is raised. In the Obamacare case, the Court pretended to know what was really in the minds of legislators in spite of their explicit words (and evidence of their actual intent). In Texas Housing, the Court has ruled that the federal government can decide what is really in the minds of ordinary people, whether they intend to discriminate or not. You may not know you are a racist–but you are, now. 
As bad as the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obamacare was, the other decision it handed down on Thursday, in Texas Housing v. Inclusive Communities, is even worse.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf Thomas dissenting at 29 of PDF. Alito dissenting at 41 of PDF - - - - - SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ET AL. v. INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13–1371. Argued January 21, 2015—Decided June 25, 2015 The Federal Government provides low-income housing tax credits that are distributed to developers by designated state agencies. In Texas, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (Department) distributes the credits. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.(ICP), a Texas-based nonprofit corporation that assists low-income families in obtaining affordable housing, brought a disparate-impact claim under §§804(a) and 805(a) of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), alleging that the Department and its officers had caused continued segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods. Relying on statistical evidence, the District Court concluded that the ICP had established a prima facie showing of disparate impact. After assuming the Department’s proffered non-discriminatory interests were valid, it found that the Department failed to meet its burden to show that there were no less discriminatory alternatives for allocating the tax credits. While the Department’s appeal was pending, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development issued a regulation interpreting the FHA to encompass disparate-impact liability and establishing a burden-shifting framework for adjudicating such claims. The Fifth Circuit held that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the FHA, but reversed and remanded on the merits, concluding that, in light of the new regulation, the District Court had improperly required the Department to prove less discriminatory alternatives. The FHA was adopted shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Recognizing that persistent racial segregation had [2] left predominantly black inner cities surrounded by mostly white suburbs, the Act addresses the denial of housing opportunities on the basis of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” In 1988, Congress amended the FHA, and, as relevant here, created certain exemptions from liability. Held: Disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. Pp. 7–24. (a) Two antidiscrimination statutes that preceded the FHA are relevant to its interpretation. Both §703(a)(2) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and §4(a)(2) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) authorize disparate-impact claims. Under Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, and Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U. S. 228, the cases announcing the rule for Title VII and for the ADEA, respectively, antidiscrimination laws should beconstrued to encompass disparate-impact claims when their text refers to the consequences of actions and not just to the mindset of actors, and where that interpretation is consistent with statutory purpose. Disparate-impact liability must be limited so employers and other regulated entities are able to make the practical business choices and profit-related decisions that sustain the free-enterprise system. Before rejecting a business justification—or a governmental entity’s analogous public interest—a court must determine that a plaintiff has shown that there is “an available alternative . . . practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs.” Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U. S. 557, 578. These cases provide essential background and instruction in the case at issue. Pp. 7–10. (b) Under the FHA it is unlawful to “refuse to sell or rent . . . or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to a person because of race” or other protected characteristic, §804(a), or “to discriminate against any person in” making certain real-estate transactions “because of race” or other protected characteristic, §805(a). The logic of Griggs and Smith provides strong support for the conclusion that the FHA encompasses disparate-impact claims. The results-oriented phrase “otherwise make unavailable” refers to the consequences of an action rather than the actor’s intent. See United States v. Giles, 300 U.S. 41, 48. And this phrase is equivalent in function and purpose to Title VII’s and the ADEA’s “otherwise adversely affect” language. In all three statutes the operative text looks to results and plays an identical role: as a catchall phrase, located at the end of a lengthy sentence that begins with prohibitions on disparate treatment. The introductory word “otherwise” also signals a shift in emphasis from an actor’s intent to the consequences of his actions. This similarity intext and structure is even more compelling because Congress passed the FHA only four years after Title VII and four months after the [3] ADEA. Although the FHA does not reiterate Title VII’s exact language, Congress chose words that serve the same purpose and bear the same basic meaning but are consistent with the FHA’s structure and objectives. The FHA contains the phrase “because of race,” but Title VII and the ADEA also contain that wording and this Court nonetheless held that those statutes impose disparate-impact liability. The 1988 amendments signal that Congress ratified such liability. Congress knew that all nine Courts of Appeals to have addressed the question had concluded the FHA encompassed disparate-impactclaims, and three exemptions from liability in the 1988 amendmentswould have been superfluous had Congress assumed that disparate-impact liability did not exist under the FHA. Recognition of disparate-impact claims is also consistent with the central purpose of the FHA, which, like Title VII and the ADEA, was enacted to eradicate discriminatory practices within a sector of the Nation’s economy. Suits targeting unlawful zoning laws and other housing restrictions that unfairly exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods without sufficient justification are at the heartland of disparate-impact liability. See, e.g., Huntington v. Huntington Branch, NAACP, 488 U. S. 15, 16–18. Recognition of disparate-impact liability under the FHA plays an important role in uncovering discriminatory intent: it permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment. But disparate-impact liability has always been properly limited in key respects to avoid serious constitutional questions that might arise under the FHA, e.g., if such liability were imposed based solely on a showing of a statistical disparity. Here, the underlying dispute involves a novel theory of liability that may, on remand, be seen simply as an attempt to second-guess which of two reasonable approaches a housing authority should follow in allocating tax credits for low-income housing. An important and appropriate means of ensuring that disparate-impact liability is properly limited is to give housing authorities and private developers leeway to state and explain the valid interest their policies serve, an analysis that is analogous to Title VII’s business necessity standard. It would be paradoxical to construe the FHA to impose onerous costs on actors who encourage revitalizing dilapidated housing in the Nation’s cities merely because some other priority might seem preferable. A disparate-impact claim relying on a statistical disparity must fail if the plaintiff cannot point to a defendant’s policy or policies causing that disparity. A robust causality requirement is important in ensuringthat defendants do not resort to the use of racial quotas. Courts must [4] therefore examine with care whether a plaintiff has made out a prima facie showing of disparate impact, and prompt resolution of thesecases is important. Policies, whether governmental or private, are not contrary to the disparate-impact requirement unless they are “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers.” Griggs, 401 U. S., at 431. Courts should avoid interpreting disparate-impact liability to be so expansive as to inject racial considerations into every housing decision. These limitations are also necessary to protect defendants against abusive disparate-impact claims. And when courts do find liability under a disparate-impact theory, their remedial orders must be consistent with the Constitution. Remedial orders in disparate-impact cases should concentrate on the elimination of the offending practice, and courts should strive to design race-neutral remedies. Remedial orders that impose racial targets or quotas might raise difficult constitutional questions. While the automatic or pervasive injection of race into public and private transactions covered by the FHA has special dangers, race may be considered in certain circumstances and in a proper fashion.This Court does not impugn local housing authorities’ race-neutral efforts to encourage revitalization of communities that have long suffered the harsh consequences of segregated housing patterns. These authorities may choose to foster diversity and combat racial isolation with race-neutral tools, and mere awareness of race in attempting to solve the problems facing inner cities does not doom that endeavor at the outset. Pp. 10–23. 747 F. 3d 275, affirmed and remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. - - - - - - - - -
The city of Yonkers NY has been dealing with this garbage for a couple decades with the most recent issue being forced into a 2009 fair housing settlement .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
ping
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Heh...good job Alito...You just gave the liberals their next case before the court. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Yep. Fighting all the way in the 80s and 90s was a retired Yonkers Firemen. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Can't wait to see Section 8 housing going up in rich leftist neighborhoods in NY and Ct.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Heh...good job Alito...You just gave the liberals their next case before the court. You do have a point. It is only a matter of time before blacks get paid at a higher minimum-wage rate than whites due to "historical racism hold-in de black mans doawn". Who knows? They might even pay them enough to get off of welfare? Especially since these will be "no show/no work jobs" for government tax credits,much like Chelsea Clinton 6 figure no-show/no work jobs that funneled bribe money to the Clintons. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Notice how Roberts has turned out to be a weak sister, just as some feared during his confirmation. Alito, appointed after the Right forced Bush to dump Aunt Harriet, has proven to be a real Scalia-style justice, the kind Dumbya promised us he would appoint to the Court.
This just shows how unimpressive and frankly garbage the so called sacred American constitution is. Just my perspective as an American from Europe who is more European than American. I have no idea what American laws mean, stand for or are to be interpreted - unlike the laws in Europe. Thank God for the Justinian Codex and Codex Napoleon.
Don't forget Jersey. When these pasty-azzed liberals in bedroom burbs policed by burly white cops finally get Homey and his seven cousins raising a ruckus at 3:00AM, OR, Mrs. Pasty-Azz gets hassled at the formerly exclusive supermarket, let 'em squeal.
Yup. I can see it now. Unintended consequences. (OR is in "intended consequences"? Anything to create racial animus, division, and resentment....and eventually SHTF situation.) The 14th Amendment and its bogus "Equal Protection" clause will have taken a new twist when Homey earns $16.00 per hour and Skippy 12.50 per hour for the same job. Already it's not enough that "Hate Crimes" can ONLY be committed by Whitey? (Another residual bogus application of the 14A's "Equal Protection.") ONLY in America can the events of over 150 years ago be like hitting the lottery fo' da new "victims."
Fears confirmed. Roberts was a liberal mole. And STILL the idiots at FR are STILL going to defend Reconquista activist and subversive, Dubya Bush. As if Roberts creds (defended a queer issue before his appointment) weren't bad enough, wasn't it odd making rookie-joker also became the SC's Chief Justice?
Given that he and Boy Jorge are both closeted homosexuals that are controlled though blackmail,I see nothing unusual at it at all. The bankers put the people they know they can control in charge. Why would anyone be surprised by that? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#2. To: cranky (#0)
#3. To: redleghunter (#2)
#4. To: cranky, tomder55, CZ82, TooConservative, GarySpFc, liberator (#0)
The dissent, written by Justice Samuel Alito, points out the absurdity of using “disparate impact” as a measure of racial discrimination. By the same logic, he writes, minimum wage laws must be racist, because they can be shown to have a disproportionate negative on hurt young black males, who are priced out of the labor market.
#5. To: tomder55 (#2)
The city of Yonkers NY has been dealing with this garbage for a couple decades with the most recent issue being forced into a 2009 fair housing settlement .
#6. To: cranky (#0)
#7. To: redleghunter (#4)
By the same logic, he writes, minimum wage laws must be racist, because they can be shown to have a disproportionate negative on hurt young black males, who are priced out of the labor market.
#8. To: cranky, redleghunter, Pericles, Gatlin (#0)
The dissent, written by Justice Samuel Alito, points out the absurdity of using “disparate impact” as a measure of racial discrimination. By the same logic, he writes, minimum wage laws must be racist, because they can be shown to have a disproportionate negative on hurt young black males, who are priced out of the labor market. Alito also notes that neither the 1968 Fair Housing Act, nor its 1988 amendments, allowed “disparate impact” to be evidence of racial discrimination.
#9. To: TooConservative, cranky, redleghunter, Gatlin, A Pole (#8)
(Edited)
#10. To: sneakypete (#6)
Can't wait to see Section 8 housing going up in rich leftist neighborhoods in NY and Ct.
#11. To: sneakypete (#7)
It is only a matter of time before blacks get paid at a higher minimum-wage rate than whites due to "historical racism hold-in de black mans doawn".
#12. To: TooConservative (#8)
Notice how Roberts has turned out to be a weak sister, just as some feared during his confirmation.
#13. To: Liberator (#12)
wasn't it odd making rookie-joker also became the SC's Chief Justice?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]