Posted on 01/22/2015 4:48:11 PM PST by Altura Ct.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared divided over a challenge to the Fair Housing Act that liberal critics say could gut the civil rights provision.
A sharply divided US Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a challenge to the Fair Housing Act (FHA) in an action that liberal critics say could gut the major civil rights provision.
At issue in a case from Dallas, Texas, is whether the housing law authorizes lawsuits over racially neutral measures that nonetheless disproportionately impact minority residents.
Liberals support the so-called disparate impact theory of civil rights enforcement, while conservatives warn that such an approach could lead to racial quotas in housing and other areas...
...The FHA prohibits anyone from refusing to sell, rent, or otherwise make unavailable a house or apartment to a person because of their race, religion, or national origin. There is no dispute about this aspect of the law.
After the FHA was enacted in 1968, federal courts and agencies began embracing a broader interpretation of the law’s scope, concluding that, in addition to barring intentional discrimination, the statute also authorizes lawsuits when housing decisions disproportionately harm minority groups.
The case before the high court involves a lawsuit challenging decisions by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs in awarding tax credits for low-income housing in Dallas. The Housing Department sought to provide new affordable housing in areas where existing housing was blighted or nonexistent. It sought to do so under race-neutral criteria.
Despite that goal, not everyone was satisfied with the agency’s performance. A Dallas-based group seeking to foster racial integration, the Inclusive Communities Project, sued the Housing Department because it said the agency had failed to provide adequate opportunities for low-income housing in Dallas’ more affluent suburbs.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Here it comes.
Race quotas for neighborhoods.
Don’t try to get away from us, the government won’t let you.
I’ve heard that there will be more efforts made to put section 8 residents in suburban areas. I don’t know if such efforts relate to this case. But, you know that neighborhoods with too many Section 8 residents start to go ghetto. Once an area gets a ghetto reputation, decent people of all races move out or don’t want to consider moving there.
If you won’t go to the crime the crime will come to you. Courtesy U.S. Government.
“...the agency had failed to provide adequate opportunities for low-income housing in Dallas’ more affluent suburbs.”
Right! I can see them now putting the old Section 8 Race Neutral Hovels in one of the Dallas gated community areas. Think the rich liberal hypocrites will allow that to happen?
The difference between a sliding from a stable property value, clean working class neighborhood into a non-reversible ghetto neighborhood rest at a point when it becomes less than 65% white.
Prepare for the cities to burn.
When does Beverly Hills get Section 8?
Low income housing has nothing to do with race...there are FAR more poor whites than there are blacks....not even close.
"...The FHA prohibits anyone from refusing to sell, rent, or otherwise make unavailable a house or apartment to a person because of their race, religion, or national origin. There is no dispute about this aspect of the law [emphasis added]."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
What law schools did justices get indoctrinated at? (I don’t really want to know.)
Noting that this doesn’t seem to be a religous expression issue, please consider the following. A previous generation of state power-respecting justices has already clarified, in broad terms, that the states have never granted the feds, expressly via Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for vote-winning intrastate housing purposes. In fact, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to likewise clarify in broad terms that such issues are state power issues.
State power-respecting justices have also clarified that neither have the states granted the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And before Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR “nuked” the Supreme Court with activist majority justices, state power-respecting justices had also clarified that powers which the states have not expressly delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the powers to regulate intrastate housing and intrastate commerce in this example, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So will somebody please explain to me exactly what the Supremes are trying to decide concerning this Texas housing issue?
The entire legal theory of “disparate impact” is incredibly evil and destructive.
If I were running any type of business/rentals I would not even have a block to check for race.
I never fill in race on the census form. And when they call asking me about it I simply tell them that we are of the human race. The keep pressing until I finally hang up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.