Help STOP Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

Unabashed Truth about AFFH, Protecting Property Rights and Local Government Authority

Home » Not only Housing, Justice Scalia’s Death and “Disparate Impact” Is a Blow to Crime Victims and Student Safety

Not only Housing, Justice Scalia’s Death and “Disparate Impact” Is a Blow to Crime Victims and Student Safety

(Edited by Smith Young with focus on SCOTUS “Disparate Impact” Ruling on AFFH)

Your local (city and county) government fending off AFFH and protecting your property rights is the citizens last stand against federal government’s oversight.  The legal liability is much greater than advertised, see the current Rockford, IL fight.

The effect of the 2015 “Disparate Impact” Ruling on AFFH is to take the focus of the federal government off housing and put it segregation requiring recipients of grants to define how they will change their communities.  It’s simple, if you want the grant then change your community.  The article below identifies how the ruling will also effect police departments that can ban color blind rules, and racialize school discipline resulting in unfair double standards.

Disparate impact” is the legal theory that local governments and businesses can be liable for racially disproportionate results without anyone ever proving—or even suggesting—the intent to discriminate. Instead the Obama Administration is claiming racist outcomes through statistical manipulation.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the first time codified disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act.

-Smith Young

Antonin Scalia, Univ Miss
CNSNEWS.COM
By Hans Bader | February 16, 2016 | 11:40 AM EST

Now deceased U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (AP File Photo)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead yesterday at the age of 79. His death will have a powerful effect on the ideological balance on the Supreme Court, which has frequently divided 5-to-4 over the scope of federal agencies’ power over citizens, businesses, and schools.

If Scalia’s replacement is left-leaning, the next administration may be able to use “disparate impact” regulations to essentially take over the nation’s police departments (based on unfounded claims of racism: Ferguson’s police department was sadly abusive at times, but not usually racist, and as explained in great detail in the past, the statistical evidence of racism the Justice Department cited was entirely bogus, and if accepted, would classify every police department in the country as racist, including those run by black police chiefs, in cities with black mayors, and many black police officers).  “Disparate impact” regulations ban certain colorblind rules when more offenders are black than white, regardless of the lack of a racist motive. An expansion of the Obama administration’s extremely aggressive disparate-impact rules will make it much harder to proactively police and arrest violent criminals.

Such “disparate impact” rules, if not limited by the Supreme Court, will also be used by the Justice and Education Departments to essentially take over school discipline.  Racial targets used to address “disparate impact” racialize school discipline and result in unfair double standards as to who gets suspended.  They also impede badly needed school discipline for menacing or disruptive students.  To a limited extent, the Obama administration has already succeeded in doing this, through consent decrees mandating racial targets for suspensions under Title VI, in several large, heavily-minority school districts.

The Obama administration already demands veiled racial quotas in school suspensions in such consent decrees. The policies it promotes have resulted in extreme double standards in some school districts, and substantialincreases in violence in some other predominantly minority school districts. The Obama administration’s race-based attack on school discipline(suspending minority students who disrupt class or menace their peers is considered “racist” “disparate impact”) is unpopular, judging by polling data cited by Joanne Jacobs and Education Week about how teachers and the public reject its school discipline push.

The Obama Education Department’s authority to even enforce disparate-impact rules is legally questionable at best, as I noted earlier. It seeks to ban “disparate impact” even though the Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) that such “disparate impact” doesn’t violate Title VI at all. (Justice Scalia provided the deciding vote in that case, and his death will no doubt embolden the Obama Administration to flout that ruling even more flagrantly than it already has.).

Please follow and like us:

Name of author

Name: Smith Young

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *