Race-Baiting: The Obama regime has used a dubious discrimination theory to shake down home and car lenders for $1.1 billion and counting. Finally, the high court may step in to stop this witch hunt. The Supreme Court has granted the state of Texas a petition for certiorari disputing the use of disparate impact to determine discrimination in housing after a civil-rights group sued its housing department. The liberal Inclusive Communities Project argues that state tax policies have created racial segregation in the Dallas area and thus have a disparate impact on minorities, allegedly in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The same legal theory, which is based purely on statistics without any evidence of intentional racism, is actively used by the Obama administration to sue banks for lending bias and employers for bias in hiring. So federal policy also is at stake in this case. Disparate impact has proved an effective policy weapon for this regime, and it is loath to lose it. In fact, fearing the conservative majority would strike down its favorite race-baiting tool as unconstitutional, the administration sabotaged two prior cases challenging disparate impact before the high bench could hear them. Barring more bribery and intimidation, lenders may finally get their day in court. If Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project stays on the docket, it could deal a huge blow to the radical racialist agenda of this administration. If justices throw the theory out, no longer will the Justice Department, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, EEOC or HUD be able to target banks, mortgage companies or employers for supposed violations despite the complete absence of discriminatory conduct. Theyll no longer be able to frame businesses as racist — a threat that has already led thousands to in effect adopt racial quotas in lending and hiring to avoid federal persecution. The risk of disparate-impact lawsuits, in the absence of guidance from the court, pressures the residential mortgage lending industry to arrive at particular outcomes and end numbers to avoid such lawsuits, the American Bankers Association wrote the high bench in a joint amicus brief. It is not surprising that to avoid legal risk, some businesses may feel pressure to manage end numbers or at least place a racial thumb on the scales. Such pressure can force lenders to water down underwriting standards and take on more risk, since down-payment requirements, debt-to-income requirements, loan-to-value requirements, and other neutral, risk-based underwriting requirements can all affect various racial and ethnic groups differently, ABA added. Read More At Investors Business Daily: news.investors/ibd-editorials/101714-722385-supreme-court-may-yet-blunt-obamas-disparate-impact-weapon.htm#ixzz3GRtegzkj Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Posted on: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:34:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015