Supreme Court upholds broad housing discrimination claims

Reuters ^ | 5/25/2015 | Lawrence Hurley

[mojito]

A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday embraced a broad interpretation of discrimination claims allowed under the landmark Fair Housing Act, handing a victory to civil rights activists who had feared the justices would rein in such lawsuits.

On a 5-4 vote in a major civil rights case, the court decided that the law allows for discrimination claims based on seemingly neutral practices that may have a discriminatory effect. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, joined the court's four liberals in the majority.

The ruling also was a triumph for President Barack Obama and his administration, which had backed Inclusive Communities Project Inc, a nonprofit group in Texas that claimed the state violated the law by disproportionately awarding low-income housing tax credits to developers who own properties in poor, minority-dominated neighborhoods.

[1010RD]

Is it any coincidence that both Kennedy and Roberts are Bush appointees?

[longtermmemmory]

ADA fishing expeditions must have dried up.

[Aleya2Fairlie]

Forget it! It will not be allowed! Game over.

[Aleya2Fairlie]

You’re really good at posting pictures relevant to the topic. A good one for this infamous day would be a huge graphic. You know, like one that comes up when you lose at an online game contest?

GAME OVER!

[matt04]

I would add anyone with a hyponated last name. Almost always liberal and nutty.

[fwdude]

“Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative...”

I stopped reading right there.

[noiseman]

"Not to justify today's votes, but Kennedy is actually very conservative in business cases-- not the cases that make headlines, but the ones that make a difference in my day-to-day law practice."

And Mussolini made the trains run on time...so what? It's because of self-interest driven pragmatism that so few are willing to stand on principle these days. The big picture always matters more than lesser concerns, but unfortunately most today will gladly trade their birthright for a little temporary comfort.

The so-called "social issues" that the RINOs of the world so casually dismiss are what our country's founders would have called foundational principles. If we have a toxic, dysfunctional culture then nothing else matters. That's why even the wealthiest of the founders were willing to give up their personal wealth and a relatively comfortable existence under the British monarchy to fight for liberty.

[Political Junkie Too]

...discrimination claims based on seemingly neutral practices that may have a discriminatory effect.

Those whose mission is to seek out evidence of discrimination will invariably find it everywhere.

Using statistical sampling to "prove" unintended discrimination from neutral practices may actually be simply identifying the people exercising their first amendment right to peaceably assemble (freedom of association, and its corrolary freedom to not associate).

-PJ

[apoliticalone]

Where is the quota system for the Supreme Court? The recent controversial SCOTUS decisions clearly illustrates why ALL Americans need to have their beliefs represented.

The many millions of Americans of WASP culture are not even being represented in these decisions, while our Constitution is being turned topsy turvy at the behest of mostly minorities of other cultures that are over represented.

The intolerant Harvard libs in charge would reflexively claim that any such a question from a WASP clearly illustrates hate and racism. The real racism is clearly incoming to us.