Federal Judge Slaps Down Obama, Again

[The Rabbi]

The administration's "novel" legal theories just keep getting trounced in the courts. Here's another winner. It seems that the administration believes there is racial discrimination even if the only "evidence" is that blacks are not reprsented in numbers equal to their presence in the general population. Yeah, seriously. Fortunately a more informed jurist, i.e. someone who knows the law and gives a shit, has other ideas.
Court rejects Obama housing bias rule as wishful thinking - Yahoo News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday threw out a housing regulation issued by President Barack Obama's administration that said racial bias claims can be based on seemingly neutral practices that may have a discriminatory effect.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the Fair Housing Act allows for only direct discrimination claims and not those based on so-called disparate impact allegations. Leon wrote that the administration's view that the language of the Fair Housing Act assumes that disparate impact claims are permitted "appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking on steroids."

The ruling was a win for the American Insurance Association and other business groups that oppose disparate impact claims, which allow for a broad range of business decisions related to housing to be subject to civil rights litigation.

As an example of such a claim, the National Fair Housing Alliance sued Allstate Corp in 2012 for refusing to insure flat-roofed houses in Delaware, claiming the practice had a discriminatory effect on poor minorities most likely to live in such buildings.

The immediate impact of Leon's decision is limited as the U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would take up a related case and is likely to decide by the end of June once and for all whether the Fair Housing Act allows for disparate impact lawsuits.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well then, that's what happens when a president seems to think everything is racist.

 

[saveliberty]

I am sort of waiting for Obama to disband the Supreme Court...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And this is why all these bullshit laws telling businesses they can't discriminate are bullshit.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I am sort of waiting for Obama to disband the Supreme Court...

"The Supreme Court acted stupidly, I am appointing Eric Holder to get to the bottom of this"

 

[The Rabbi]

Let's see if Holder actually abides by the decision.

 

[JFK_USA]

Let's see if Holder actually abides by the decision.

There is a case going through the appeals process at the moment so no. Because a US district court is not binding to the Supreme Court. They'll wait for that court to rule.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let's see if Holder actually abides by the decision.

There is a case going through the appeals process at the moment so no. Because a US district court is not binding to the Supreme Court. They'll wait for that court to rule.

Never mind that the case is binding until such time as the Supremes hear it and declide.
Otherwise why even bother having federal courts?

 

[Care4all]

Let's see if Holder actually abides by the decision.

There is a case going through the appeals process at the moment so no. Because a US district court is not binding to the Supreme Court. They'll wait for that court to rule.

Correct. And as the article states this decision has little impact, because the supreme court had already agreed to hear a similar case....

The immediate impact of Leon's decision is limited as the U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would take up a related case and is likely to decide by the end of June once and for all whether the Fair Housing Act allows for disparate impact lawsuits.

 

[Care4all]

Let's see if Holder actually abides by the decision.

There is a case going through the appeals process at the moment so no. Because a US district court is not binding to the Supreme Court. They'll wait for that court to rule.

Never mind that the case is binding until such time as the Supremes hear it and declide.
Otherwise why even bother having federal courts?

Because the Supreme Court can choose to not hear the case...and leave it at the lower level.

 

[saveliberty]

Is he tossing around terms like Constitutional Crisis yet?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Let's see if Holder actually abides by the decision.

There is a case going through the appeals process at the moment so no. Because a US district court is not binding to the Supreme Court. They'll wait for that court to rule.

Correct. And as the article states this decision has little impact, because the supreme court had already agreed to hear a similar case....

The immediate impact of Leon's decision is limited as the U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would take up a related case and is likely to decide by the end of June once and for all whether the Fair Housing Act allows for disparate impact lawsuits.

And?..In the mean time the insurer gets to save themselves tons of money by not having to insure poorly built homes..
Why should any carrier be subject to these statistical and actuarial losers?
We are coming into winter in the northern hemisphere. Snow melt and snow weight makes these type roofs vulnerable to leaks and collapse.
If anything, the underwriters can agree to insure, but the premiums should be punitive.
Now that may appear mean spirited to the touchy feely crowd, but like anything else insurance companies are in business to turn a profit. Losses are passed along to the insureds and spread out to all Allstate policy holders. Now why should those who made wiser choices to live in homes built to modern codes have to cover for those who have chosen high risk dwellings?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Let's see if Holder actually abides by the decision.

There is a case going through the appeals process at the moment so no. Because a US district court is not binding to the Supreme Court. They'll wait for that court to rule.

Never mind that the case is binding until such time as the Supremes hear it and declide.
Otherwise why even bother having federal courts?

Because the Supreme Court can choose to not hear the case...and leave it at the lower level.

It won't. SCOTUS will hear the case and the plaintiff will prevail. It's common sense. There is no discrimination based on race here. Races other than blacks are just as likely to reside in substandard housing or housing which does not meet standard building codes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Let's see if Holder actually abides by the decision.

There is a case going through the appeals process at the moment so no. Because a US district court is not binding to the Supreme Court. They'll wait for that court to rule.

Correct. And as the article states this decision has little impact, because the supreme court had already agreed to hear a similar case....

The immediate impact of Leon's decision is limited as the U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would take up a related case and is likely to decide by the end of June once and for all whether the Fair Housing Act allows for disparate impact lawsuits.

tell ya what....YOU can insure them..How's that?....Once again a flaming lib is demanding that other people's money be spent in a certain way.

 

[Care4all]

As far as the general idea.... I can see how it could be used to discriminate if a company truly wanted to do such...

At the same time, I can't see most businesses truly planning these actions solely as a means for them to discriminate....in other words, I don't see that their discrimination is intentional, I see it as more than likely, a financial driving decision.

The supreme court AGREED to hear the argument...so they think it was important enough to review, I suppose we all will know one way or another, once they rule.