Quote:
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.
]