The Supreme Court says housing lawsuits charging discrimination no longer need proof

Remember when Barney Frank insisted in 2003 that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis,” and “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing?”

As chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, former Rep. Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, helped defeat Bush administration proposals to rein in the two federal loan giants. The housing market crashed in 2008 on thousands of bad subprime home loans, triggering the Great Recession, from which this nation still has not recovered.

Well, it’s time to roll the dice again. According to the 5-4 majority opinion at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, housing lawsuits based on race no longer need proof of intentional discrimination.

Of the 3 really bad decisions that the supreme political court spewed forth this week, this is really, quite possibly the worst. The legal theory approved by the court is going to impact everything from real estate to election laws.

As mentioned in related threads, regardless what FDR’s activist justices wanted everybody to believe about Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, FDR’s thug justices wrongly ignored the following. They ignore that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce. This is evidenced by the following excerpt.

”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.

Also, the only discrimination-related rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect which the feds have the 14th Amendment authorization to regulate is voting rights, such protections evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

So anti-state sovereignty justices are once again trying to weaken 10th Amendment-protected state powers by enforcing housing lawsuits on the basis of constitutionally nonexistant federal government power to regulate intrastate commerce, and likewise nonexistant constitutional protections.

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.