Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘Mount Holly Township New Jersey’

… Thomas Perez is So Busted …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,June 17th,2013

Thomas Perez is So Busted

… and was said in the ’60s , the whole world is watching …

LEC here — I wanted to paste this together , and repost it on my blog , as one unit , with links [] and [] with the great news that Hans announces below

[h/t to pjmedia , and one hell of a lawyer and writer , hans von spakovsky !]

SCOTUS Takes Up Mt. Holly Case

Posted By Hans A. von Spakovsky On June 17, 2013 @ 7:04 am In Politics

The Supreme Court has just granted certiorari in Mt. Holly, NJ v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens, so it will hear arguments on the case in the fall.  This is the case I  previously wrote about that involves the questionable  “disparate impact” legal theory that has gotten Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights (and Obama Labor Secretary nominee) Thomas Perez into so much trouble.  The Court granted review despite a brief from the Solicitor General telling the Supremes that they should not take the case.  No doubt, civil rights groups will now do everything they can (perhaps with the help of the administration) to convince the town of Mt. Holly to dismiss its case before their pet legal theory gets tossed out by the Supreme Court.

LEC again — you can bet that the Supremes are watching this .

[-] the town of Mt Holly  has taken it this far . I strongly doubt that they are willing to settle . Able to settle , yes . Willing , No . Especially with the spotlight this one is going to get .

[-] the pressure that the interest groups and the ObamaCraps are going to put on them will be enormous . They will play hardball , fair or foul , to get the town to settle . However , they need the Court ‘ s permission . No , not the district court , this time .

[-] One thing that this does is that it gets the case out of the hands of the ObamaCraps . They would not and will not dare pull a rerun of what Thomas Perez pulled in the Magner v Gallagher case , out of the 10th Circuit [St. Paul , Mn] . They may want to , but not with even the chance that the chicanery could screw up Cory Booker ‘ s Senate election . Oh , Booker has to run in 2014 . Someone may want to run then , especially if it looks like a strong Republican year , and Christie wins in a blowout , with coattails .

[-] There are at least 4 votes to shoot down disparate impact . I am thinking that there will be at least 6 [Scalia , Thomas , Alito , CJ Roberts , Kennedy , plus either Sotomayor or Breyer ] . Forget about Ginsberg . Also , given Perez ‘ monkeyshines , I do not think that Kagan can participate in the case .

[-] Briefs , especially the amicus briefs , and the arguments too , are going to be World War III . This one is going to be one of the highlights of the next Supreme Court term .

[-] You can forget about Perez getting a confirmation vote for Labour Secretary . There is no way in hell that he will get it , especially with the other cases on Presidential powers on recess appointments pending .

[-] ditto , POTUS ‘ pseudo appointees to the D.C. circuit . The current cast of regular appeallate judges , plus Srnivisian (the new guy , a conservative , of all things) , plus the senior judges (7 or 8 of them) can easily handle the workload .

PJ Media » More Justice Department Chicanery: Thomas Perez and ‘Disparate

Impact’ » Print

More Justice Department Chicanery: Thomas Perez and ‘Disparate Impact’

Posted By Hans von Spakovsky On June 1, 2013 @ 12:00 am In Judiciary,Legal,US

News | 19 Comments

 

One of the administration’s favorite legal theories, “disparate impact,” may get

taken up again by the Supreme Court. Will the administration try to engineer

some kind of payoff to take the issue away from the Court — again?

In June 2012, the town of Mount Holly, N.J., petitioned the Supreme Court to

review the legitimacy of racial discrimination claims premised solely on a

disparate impact theory under the Fair Housing Act. Under this theory, a policy

— such as requiring high credit scores for loans — can be completely neutral,

but if it yields a disparate impact on a particular racial or gender group, an

institution using that policy can be held liable for discrimination. In other

words, an entity can be found to have discriminated even if it didn’t actually

intend to discriminate.

Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for Civil Rights at the Justice

Department and President Obama’s nominee to be Labor secretary, has used

disparate impact to extort huge settlements from the financial industry under

the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

Here, Mount Holly is alleged to have discriminated simply because it wanted to

redevelop and rebuild a rundown housing development in a high-crime area where

almost half the residents are black. Thus, the rebuilding plan would have had a

statistically larger impact on black residents than white residents.

The issue of whether a mere disparate impact claim violates the FHA, or whether

the more rigorous standard of intentional discrimination is required was before

the Supreme Court last year. In that case, Magner v. Gallagher, the city of St.

Paul, MN, was accused of violating the FHA because it aggressively enforced the

health and safety provisions of its housing code. Slumlords sued the city,

claiming that enforcement had a disparate impact because the majority of their

tenants were racial minorities.

In other words, they were using the FHA to obstruct the city’s attempt to

improve the horrible living conditions of poor families.

Thomas Perez concocted a quid pro quo deal to have the Magner case dismissed —

even though the U.S. was not a party in the case. At the time, the federal

government was considering intervening in a separate False Claims Act case worth

almost $200 million against St. Paul. The city had received tens of millions of

dollars from the federal government based on what career attorneys within the

Justice Department called a “particularly egregious example of false

certifications” by the city.

Perez told St. Paul that the Justice Department would stay out of the False

Claims Act case if the city withdrew the Magner case that the Supreme Court had

agreed to hear. The city jumped at the deal.

A report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later

concluded that Perez “sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he

feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the

Fair Housing Act.” According to the same report, Perez also attempted to hide

both the deal and his involvement in it.

He even called a key lawyer in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota and told

him to make sure there wasn’t “any mention of the Magner case” in the False

Claims Act case files.

Fast forward to the new claim involving Mount Holly: although the U.S. is,

again, not a party to the case, the Supreme Court last October asked the Justice

Department to file a brief advising whether it thought the Court should accept

the case for review.

To no one’s surprise, the brief [1] that Justice recently filed told the Court

it should not take the case. The question of whether disparate impact claims are

available under the FHA “does not warrant review,” it declared. The brief was

filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., and right under his name is

that of Thomas E. Perez.

Verrilli and Perez argue that disparate impact claims are a “reasonable

construction of the statute’s text, structure, and history” and that there is no

conflict in the courts of appeal on this issue. But the brief ends with an

argument you wouldn’t expect from Justice, given Perez’s sub rosa involvement in

getting the Magner case dismissed — especially in light of recent revelations

that he violated federal law and Justice Department rules by using his personal

email account to facilitate the deal.

Verrilli and Perez fault Mount Holly for even raising the issue of whether

disparate impact claims are valid under the FHA. Mount Holly, they write, had

the “opportunity to raise both questions” in the lower courts when the Magner

case was before the Supreme Court,” and therefore can’t bring it up now.

With stunning chutzpah, the government is arguing that Mount Holly should have

been aware that disparate impact was a live issue when review was granted in

Magner v. Gallagher and should have raised the issue in its own case.

This is wrong for two reasons. First, the timeliness of Mount Holly’s claim that

disparate impact does not constitute a violation of the FHA has no relation

whatsoever to someone else’s lawsuit, such as the Magner case. Second, even if

Mount Holly mistakenly thought disparate impact was not a live legal issue when

Magner was before the Supreme Court, Mount Holly would have learned it was a

live issue when the scandal became public over the government’s quid pro quo

deal that bought off St. Paul and caused the city to dismiss the Magner case.

Therefore, the government’s very actions in Magner make the Mount Holly

disparate impact claims in the current case timely.

It should also be noted that while the brief criticizes Mount Holly for not

raising this issue when Magner was before the Supreme Court, it fails to inform

the Court that a senior Justice Department official (whose name is on the brief)

helped get that very case dismissed before the Court could hear oral arguments.

Should we be surprised by any of these convoluted machinations?

Probably not, given what happened the last time disparate impact was being

considered by the Supreme Court. The House report concluded that the quid pro

quo in the Magner case “manipulated the rule of law and pushed the limits of

justice to make” the deal happen.

The Supreme Court should accept the Mount Holly case. And if Justice approaches

Mount Holly with a Magner-esque deal, the city should reject it so the Court can

finally rule on the validity of disparate impact claims.

 

 

Advertisements

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »