Cudos to the WT for being one of the few media outlets willing to expose the insufferable tentacles of the Social Engineering tool now known as “disparate impact”.
Disparate impact works around the race-baiting problem of equal opportunity by advancing a proposition that only equal outcomes can define whether an adverse impact exists. A ridiculous proposition. All people are created equal – but not all people take advantage of the equality afforded them; some -if not many- are just lazy, and their failures cannot -and should not- be comingled with the success of those who exert effort.
If the Treehouse had infinite financial resources we would challenge disparate impact everywhere it raises its ugly head. In the interim we will assist ANY endeavor with research, argument formation, and fact-based analysis to deconstruct the racial underpinning used as the foundation to advance a ridiculous ideological construct.
WASHINGTON TIMES – 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.
[scribd id=245420700 key=key-qMnmRwkikk6K4oUAmFry mode=scroll]
The case stems from a Department of Housing and Urban Development rule issued last year that said discrimination could be proved using disparate impact, which means looking at statistical analysis to see whether one group fares differently from another.
Previously, someone had to prove intentional discrimination to win a housing complaint.
Civil rights groups argue that disparate impact helps weed out hidden discrimination, while opponents say it is intrusive and papers over other reasons why outcomes may differ between races or other demographic categories.
HUD argued that Congress authorized disparate impact analysis in the Fair Housing Act. Several major insurance organizations sued.
Judge Leon said neither the wording of the Fair Housing Act nor his reading of Congress’ intent when it passed the legislation supports HUD’s interpretation.
Besides, he ruled, disparate impact would force insurers and others to collect information on race, religion and other factors — questions they often are banned from asking even under state laws.
Although some appeals courts have upheld disparate impact analysis as valid, the judge said, the Supreme Court took a dim view in a 2005 ruling that seemed to reset the legal thinking.
In a statement, HUD said the department was reviewing the ruling and considering whether to appeal.
Judge Leon went beyond the Fair Housing Act ruling to rebuke Mr. Perez for gaming the legal system. (READ MORE)