The Principle of Self-Government is Dead!

[Trapper John]

In the midst of all of the hoopla over the SCOTUS decision re: ACA, the following was overlooked and IMO has the potential to transform our society far beyond the impact of ACA or the recent ruling on same sex marriage. Probably the single most important principle of our form of government is that of self-government. Or at least it has been up to now.

In its decision yesterday in Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project upheld the notion that racial discrimination within a community is proved by the absence of racial diversity in a neighborhood for instance, the so-called disparate racial impact doctrine.

This is a fundamental reversal of the evidentiary basis of proof, i.e. evidence of discriminatory intent or treatment. Now the outcome is sufficient to prove racial discrimination.

More disturbing still is the opinion expressed by Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority opinion, explained that lower courts have upheld disparate impact through various rulings since 1988. The problem is that Congress outlawed disparate racial treatment in the 1968 Fair Housing Act. In justification for the SCOTUS ruling, Kennedy argued that Congress failed to address the disparate impact issue when it reauthorized the Act in 1988 and therefore by its silence on the matter ratified disparate impact.

As a result of this ruling the principle of self-government is dead! IMO this ruling dwarfs the impact of the ACA and same-sex rulings. The latter two will receive all the attention in the media and become a giant misdirection for the sheeple as the most sacred principle of government has just been swept into the annals of history.

[Streck-Fu]

upheld the notion that racial discrimination within a community is proved by the absence of racial diversity in a neighborhood

Does this mean that opposition to Gentrification is evidence of discrimination?

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

What gets me is how they are wanting to move poor people into affluent neighborhoods to "give the poor a chance." This kind of thing was tried in the past, and all it tends to do is move the types of people that many people worked hard to get away from right next door. The result is lawns don't get mowed and crime and drugs are brought in. I agree with the Court's upholding of same-sex marriage.

And then the affluent people move....again.....and again.

Idiots.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

As a result of this ruling the principle of self-government is dead! IMO this ruling dwarfs the impact of the ACA and same-sex rulings. The latter two will receive all the attention in the media and become a giant misdirection for the sheeple as the most sacred principle of government has just been swept into the annals of history.

TJ,

Agree 110%!!!

This is a sad day in American History, and the saddest part being, most US citizens do not even understand why....Freedom is being taken away inch by inch, and ruling by ruling!

Holly

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by echoes

TJ,

Agree 110%!!!

This is a sad day in American History, and the saddest part being, most US citizens do not even understand why....Freedom is being taken away inch by inch, and ruling by ruling!

Holly

Frightfully, I'm not sure that "most" Americans are even aware of the decisions that were announced -- other than the fact they saw the announcement on the MSM. Once they see it...they may remark about it and then go back to the Kardashians or other such things of importance.

I am afraid that "Reality TV" has trumped SCOTUS decisions in many people's daily lives.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by Agoge2

Frightfully, I'm not sure that "most" Americans are even aware of the decisions that were announced -- other than the fact they saw the announcement on the MSM. Once they see it...they may remark about it and then go back to the Kardashians or other such things of importance.

I am afraid that "Reality TV" has trumped SCOTUS decisions in many people's daily lives.

They never saw it!

It's been clouded by gays can marry each other, and Obummer gets his way on ACA. Even the Kardashians will tweet their fans how proud they are for people like their FIL turned ?IL.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Does this mean that opposition to Gentrification is evidence of discrimination?

No, this means that the absence of proof of discrimination is proof of discrimination.

Stand here, file grievance here, no proof necessary. Accusations are a justification for remedy.

[Sigaba]

FWIW, discussions of this case are available here and the ruling is available there.

IMO, a piece by Myron Orfield, "Romney was right about disparate-impact" is especially thought provoking not the least because it suggests that Nixon and other Republicans believed that disparate impact was a good tool to use against entrenched segregationist policies and practices.

Originally Posted by echoes

TJ,

Agree 110%!!!

This is a sad day in American History, and the saddest part being, most US citizens do not even understand why....Freedom is being taken away inch by inch, and ruling by ruling!

Holly

What freedom(s) were taken away from you today?

[PSM]

Originally Posted by WCH

What freedom(s) were taken away from you today?

Concerning ObamaCare, the freedom to choose my insurance company and the coverage that I want to pay for. Also, the freedom to not have health insurance, if I choose.

The same sex marriage decision took away my freedom to vote my conscience. In, arguably, the most liberal state in the union, California, we overwhelmingly voted against same sex marriage, yet it was overturned by an unelected judicial court. Also, the CEO of Mozilla lost his job for supporting that vote.

Pat

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

No, this means that the absence of proof of discrimination is proof of discrimination.

Stand here, file grievance here, no proof necessary. Accusations are a justification for remedy.

I make my living by counting parking spaces and parked cars, sorting the beans, and then writing reports. I can name a couple of municipalities that have attempted to use parking policies as a form of ethnic cleansing. (It took a while, but my boss and the project manager eventually realized what I was telling them.)

Were I to team up with an unscrupulous municipal planning department and a complicit (or unwitting) city council member, I could help draft parking requirements and regulations that would drive and keep out certain groups of people. Put a similarly motivated transportation planner on this team, and the resulting regulations would work as well as a concrete wall in keeping out "undesirables." You can plug almost any cohort into the "undesirable" slot. We would figure out that group's parking and travel needs and then make meeting those needs a significant PITA, if not entirely unsustainable.

A few activists would understand what was happening, but they'd have zero proof. The physical project folder would have a copy of the scope of services and a blandly written technical report. The digital files and correspondence would be gone. The expense reports and invoices would be detailed and transparent. Moreover, their observations would get very little traction politically -- most of their neighbors would simply be happy to have more available "free" parking, and who gives a hoot about "undesirables," anyway?

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Agoge2

Frightfully, I'm not sure that "most" Americans are even aware of the decisions that were announced -- other than the fact they saw the announcement on the MSM. Once they see it...they may remark about it and then go back to the Kardashians or other such things of importance.

I am afraid that "Reality TV" has trumped SCOTUS decisions in many people's daily lives.

Anywhere we dine for lunch it is ESPN that Trumps all.....

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

FWIW, discussions of this case are available here and the ruling is available there.

IMO, a piece by Myron Orfield, "Romney was right about disparate-impact" is especially thought provoking not the least because it suggests that Nixon and other Republicans believed that disparate impact was a good tool to use against entrenched segregationist policies and practices.

As you point out, this issue has transcended political party affiliation. I am now of the opinion Republican v Democrat is a distinction without a difference. We have generated a permanent political class and no matter what party is in power, the objective is the same - retain the position of power. The people that are governed are just that - the governed and have less and less influence (let alone control) over the governing process.

The ruling re: disparate impact is disturbing in that it shifts power to an agency of the executive branch simply on the basis that the legislative branch failed to address the issue when the law was reauthorized. Now there is a SCOTUS ruling on the matter rendering it very difficult to reverse if not impossible.

Now we have yet another agency that can promulgate a rule with the effect of law outside of the legislative (representative) branch of government. An activist Department of Housing and Urban Development can, and IMO will, mandate changes in the complexion of communities and neighborhoods by rule. [And ya thought "taxation without representation" was onerous! ]

Worse still may be the dangerous precedent that is set by what is now case law, i.e. failure by Congress to object to this or that becomes a de facto ratification and therefore law (??) i.e. de facto centralization of power in the Executive branch. What might be next?

[Note: I previously stated in an early post that I thought that the SCOTUS was the last bastion protecting our process of government and as a result, our liberties. TS called me out on that point and politely, in a TS sort of way, pointed out that I was naive. You are correct TS and yes, that was a rather naive POV in light of what has just transpired at the hands of the SCOTUS. ]

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Many would argue though that the Court overturning that was just the court doing its job, i.e. protecting the right of a minority against the majority. For example, if the people of California overwhelmingly support a gun control measure and then a court strikes it down, conservatives would applaud the court for doing so.

Yeah, except in that case (gun control) the decision would be tethered to the constitution. The same sex marriage ruling, for better or worse, doesn't seem to be.

[Box]

Self-Government




...just looking at that particular collection of letters gives me a chuckle.