Under Trump, Approach to Civil Rights Law Is Likely to Change Definitively (thank goodness)

New York Times ^ | January 19, 2017 | MATT APUZZO

[reaganaut1]

Washington — In the final weeks of the Obama administration, the Justice Department won the first hate-crime case involving a transgender victim and sued two cities for blocking mosques from opening. Prosecutors settled lending-discrimination charges with two banks, then sued a third. They filed legal briefs on behalf of New York teenagers being held in solitary confinement, and accused Louisiana of forcing mentally ill patients into nursing homes.

And then, with days remaining, prosecutors announced a deal to overhaul Baltimore’s Police Department and accused Chicago of unconstitutional police abuses.

The moves capped a historic and sometimes controversial eight-year span in which the Justice Department pushed the frontiers of civil rights laws, inserting itself into private lawsuits and siding with transgender students, juvenile prisoners, the homeless, the blind, and people who videotape police officers. On issues of gay rights, policing, criminal justice, voting and more, government lawyers argued for a broad interpretation of civil rights laws, a view that they consistently said would put them on the right side of history.

Few areas of federal policy are likely to change so definitively. President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, opposes not only the Justice Department’s specific policies on civil rights but its entire approach. While liberal Democrats have criticized Mr. Sessions’s views on specific issues like gay marriage and voting, the larger difference is how differently the Trump administration will view the government’s role in those areas.

Vanita Gupta, the head of the civil rights division and the face of the Obama administration’s efforts over the past two years, has spoken about the power “to bend the arc of history itself — not merely by serving your clients, but by harnessing the law as a force for positive change.”

[reaganaut1]

Starting today we return to a Justice Department that enforces laws rather than making them up. Congress never passed a law mandating transgender bathrooms, for example.

[Sacajaweau]

You mean you won't lose your job for "offending" a black?

And Santa will once again be able to say....Ho Ho Ho...

[wbarmy]

I hate the word “transgender”. There is no such thing. There are boys who like to pretend to be girls and girls who like to pretend to be boys. But the hormones and the genes do not change and never will.

[Ray76]

Regarding mosques

In Virginia a group sought to buy land to build a mosque. The group knew that there was no sewer service and that due to soil conditions a particular type of septic system would be required. They bought the land anyway. They then complained about the requirement and claimed it was anti-moslem bigotry. The DOJ sued Prince William County on their behalf.

In New Jersey a group wanted to build a mosque and Bernards Township required a larger parking lot. The group complained that similar sized churches and synagogues had smaller lots. The town explained that due to the groups planned activities during weekdays that additional off-street parking is required. The DOJ sued on the groups behalf.

This is staged. This is lawfare. The DOJ are, at best, useful idiots.

[mumblypeg]

Exactly. The DOJ has no business overruling city ordinances, just as the Obama administration has no business forcing Muslim “refugees” into communities that don’t want the disruption.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Imagine what would happen if the appalling “hate crimes” law applied evenly to people, no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation or national origin?

That is, if say a black man is screaming racist epithets when attacking a white person, or a female impersonator homosexual is trying to defraud a straight male looking for a girlfriend or wife? Or a Muslim employed by CAIR calls for Jews and homosexuals and Christians to be murdered?