THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT MUST PREVENT PRESIDENT OBAMA FROM APPOINTING ANOTHER MISFIT ,LIBERAL, SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT TO THE SUPREME COURT! IF THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND SENATE FAIL TO DO SO THEY WILL LOSE WHAT LITTLE
CREDIBILITY THEY HAVE AS TRUE CONSERVATIVES!
A Washington, D.C. attorney who has practiced both civil rights and constitutional law warns it is possible that Senate confirmation of a left-leaning Obama appointee to the high court could allow the federal government to take over not only police departments, but also all of school discipline in public schools.
Writing at Liberty Unyielding, Hans Bader observes that a high court that leans further left could allow the next administration to use “disparate impact” regulations to essentially take control of the nation’s police forces and school discipline policies based on claims of racism.
Disparate impact theory holds that current practices in law enforcement, school discipline, housing, and other areas – without intention – could result in a statistically disproportionate effect on a protected group of people, and, therefore, could be considered discriminatory and illegal.
Bader cites the example of the Justice Department referencing statistical evidence of racism in Ferguson, Missouri:
Ferguson’s police department was sadly abusive at times, but not usually racist, and…the statistical evidence of racism the Justice Department cited was entirely bogus, and if accepted, would classify every police department in the country as racist, including those run by black police chiefs, in cities with black mayors, and many black police officers). “Disparate impact” regulations ban certain colorblind rules when more offenders are black than white, regardless of the lack of a racist motive. An expansion of the Obama administration’s extremely aggressive disparate-impact rules will make it much harder to proactively police and arrest violent criminals.
Bader asserts that if the Supreme Court does not limit “disparate impact” rules, the U.S. Justice and Education Departments could essentially “radicalize school discipline,” which would result in double standards as to suspensions and other discipline based primarily on race.
For example, just one year after the Obama administration issued new school discipline policies based on the concern that students of color are “disproportionately impacted” by suspensions and expulsions, a journalist proposed the liberal policies–based in social justice ideology–are making schools less safe.
In a column in the New York Post last March, Hoover Institution media fellow Paul Sperry explained that replacing traditional discipline with “restorative justice” and “peer juries” is backfiring, to the extent that many urban school districts are experiencing an increase in violence and disruptions.
“Restorative justice isn’t really punishment at all,” wrote Sperry. “It’s therapy.” And it’s a type of therapy the Obama administration is holding out as the answer to what it considers to be the racist disciplining of black students who are suspended at rates higher than those of white students.
“Racial targets used to address ‘disparate impact’…also impede badly needed school discipline for menacing or disruptive students,” Bader writes. “To a limited extent, the Obama administration has already succeeded in doing this, through consent decrees mandating racial targets for suspensions under Title VI, in several large, heavily-minority school districts.”
The Obama Education Department’s authority to even enforce disparate-impact rules islegally questionable at best…It seeks to ban “disparate impact” even though the Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001) that such “disparate impact” doesn’tviolate Title VI at all. (Justice Scalia provided the deciding vote in that case, and his death will no doubt embolden the Obama Administration to flout that ruling even more flagrantly than it already has.).
No comments:
Post a Comment