Supreme Court Keeps Key Housing Discrimination Protections Intact

[boutons_deux]

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday that housing policies and practices with discriminatory outcomes can be challenged under the Fair Housing Act, even if there was no intent to discriminate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/25/supreme-court-housing-discrimination_n_7471048.html?ir=Politics&utm_campaign=062515&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

TX Repug racists kicked in the balls!

[FromWayDowntown]

For all of your bitching about the partisanship on the Court, the majority now seems likely to side with the little guy or the minority on a wide array of legal issues presented this term, including this win, the victory in Burwell, and what seems likely to be at least a partial victory on same-sex marriage.

[boutons_deux]

For all of your bitching about the partisanship on the Court, the majority now seems likely to side with the little guy or the minority on a wide array of legal issues presented this term, including this win, the victory in Burwell, and what seems likely to be at least a partial victory on same-sex marriage.

Burwell was a bad case, no basis, no standing at all. The 3 Repug tools dissenting exposed themselves again as Repug judicial garbage

the FHA judgement was 5-4 was surprising. But since no corporations' profits were at risk, not THAT surprising.

Doesn't change the overall pro-business, anti-human rulings of the the Roberts VRWC court.

[DMX7]

NY Times had an article about how the court seems to be leaning left - by the narrowest of margins of course -- but left, none the less, all of the sudden.

[boutons_deux]

NY Times had an article about how the court seems to be leaning left - by the narrowest of margins of course -- but left, none the less, all of the sudden.

Nope. Roberts court is pro business

These 2 decisions aren't business decisions

C-U decision will screw 99% America and democracy for decades. Today does nothing to offset C-U

[boutons_deux]

More garbage from a Repug JINO

Clarence Thomas: The NBA proves “racial imbalance” can be good for black people

Court's sole African American justice writes puzzling dissent in housing discrimination case

... one of the other noteworthy opinions came from conservative Justice Thomas’ dissent (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf), in which he wrote, “the fact that a practice has a disparate impact is not conclusive evidence that a practice is discriminatory.”

A well enough point, but it was the example he used to illustrate this point that proved most curious.

“Over 70 percent of National Basketball Association (NBA) players have been black,” Thomas pointed out, arguing that “racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities.”

“If, for instance, white basketball players cannot bring disparate-impact suits— then we as a Court have constructed a scheme that parcels out legal privileges to individuals on the basis of skin color,” he continued.

Thomas went on to cite examples of minorities who “have owned or directed more than half of whole industries in particular nations” including “Jews in Poland” and “the Chinese in Malaysia” to argue that not all disproportional representation is bad.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/25/clarence_thomas_the_nba_proves_racial_imbalance_ca n_be_good_for_black_people/

Holy shit, brain-damaged Thomes! Thanks, Repugs!

[boutons_deux]

How The Supreme Court’s Major Housing Ruling Could Impact Voter ID

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court shocked many (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/25/3673952/supreme-court-shows-surprising-willingness-combat-unconscious-discrimination/) by narrowly ruling (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf) to protect one of the nation’s key civil rights laws. The Fair Housing Act — which bans discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin — survived a challenge from Texas’s Department of Housing and Community Affairs, which stood accused of exacerbating segregation in Dallas by only approving subsidized low-income housing in low-income neighborhoods of color.

The case hinged on whether victims of housing discrimination had to prove the government, banks or other entities consciously set out to discriminate against them — an often impossibly high legal bar — or whether they could simply prove they were disproportionately hurt by a certain policy.

The ruling will not only have a major role in protecting families of color from the kinds of subtle discrimination (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/02/3575079/the-supreme-court-will-hear-a-case-that-could-obliterate-fair-housing-law/) in home loans, housing vouchers and tax credits that remains rampant today, it could also play a major role in protecting voting rights.

Senior Attorney Kathy Culliton-Gonzalez with the Advancement Project, which is involved in several voting rights lawsuits around the country, said the ruling is “very helpful” because it asserts that it’s not necessary to prove intentional voter suppression based on race.

“These days it’s very, very hard to prove intent,” she said. “We have a lot of implicit bias and symbols of racism, like the Confederate flag, but we don’t always find state legislators saying, ‘We’re going to suppress the African American vote or the Latino vote.’ But there are things that are quite discriminatory in voting that occur on a regular basis.”

Even when lawmakers do speak openly about the racist purpose behind their voting laws — as they have in Georgia (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/09/3565073/georgia-senator-early-voting-suppression/), Texas (http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/28/appeals-court-scrutinize-voter-id-law/) and elsewhere — it’s still nearly impossible to prove such intent in court.

“It prohibits any practice or procedure that has the effect of diminishing the ability of voters of color to elect their candidates of choice,” Culliton-Gonzalez explained. “Like voter ID laws, requiring proof of citizenship, cuts to early voting, and modern day poll taxes and literacy tests. Now we’re seeing cases litigating new types of voter suppression that haven’t been tried in the past, and people are questioning whether ‘disparate impact’ is enough. It’s still very difficult to prove, but it’s been shored up by today’s opinion.”

Culliton-Gonzalez is part of the team suing the state of North Carolina over their law requiring aphoto ID to vote (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/19/3671820/lawsuit-looming-north-carolina-scrambles-pass-bill-loosen-voter-id-rules/), eliminating same-day voter registration and slashing the number of early voting days, among other provisions. Though she can’t speak in detail about the case, which goes to trial on July 13, she said the Supreme Court ruling should have a “very helpful and promising” impact on the effort to overturn North Carolina’s law.

“We’re living in a time where all around us there is evidence of racial injustice, so I’m glad the Court acknowledged ongoing racial discrimination and said it’s not unconstitutional to look at discriminatory impact in our legal system,” she said.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/25/3673873/supreme-courts-major-housing-ruling-impact-voter-id-laws/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NY Times had an article about how the court seems to be leaning left - by the narrowest of margins of course -- but left, none the less, all of the sudden.

Many of them like Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg and Roberts are legal ideologues on particular issues that transcend party politics. Might be in terms of federalism, equal protection, Articles III and IV or any number of issues. I think it's probably fair to say each of them is like that on one matter or another. I just know particular instances where the 4 I mentioned behave as such. Looks like NYT is fixated on partisan politics.