The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Federal judge rules that "disparate impact" theory of housing "discrimination" is not a part of the law as it is written:

a federal judge tossed out [a HUD] regulation imposing “disparate impact” racial policy on housing....

Judge Richard Leon has ruled that the 1968 [Fair Housing] act “unambiguously prohibits only intentional discrimination” and thus the 2013 Housing and Urban Development rule violates the law.

"disparate impact" says that, even if there is no evidence of willful discrimination, a statistical analysis of the results allows one to "infer" discrimination anyway.

Under the "disparate impact" theory, the NBA "discriminates" against white people, because on a proportionate basis, there are so few white basketball players on NBA teams relative to their prevalence in the population at large.

[unofan]

Federal judge rules that "disparate impact" theory of housing "discrimination" is not a part of the law as it is written:

Who cares. SCOTUS is already scheduled to rule on this issue this term. In fact they've been chomping at the bit to do so, and only haven't previously because cases keep settling.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Here is a serious situation in which it might literally be impossible for an employer to comply with two conflicting federal regulators:

The National Transportation Safety Board has started issuing its findings on the five Metro-North accidents that occurred over the last year and a half.

These reports focus on significant events and point out necessary corrective measures. It is important for Metro-North to acknowledge and learn from what occurred, take corrective action, and move forward. And that is exactly what Metro-North has done and will continue to do.

Metro-North has devoted the last year and a half driving toward the goal of rebuilding the railroad's organizational culture and its physical plant so that safety is the foundation of everything we do.

....

Improvements occurring in the near future include:
The creation of a pilot program for identifying key employees with sleep apnea.

Employees with sleep apnea undoubtedly are protected under the Americans with Disability Act, yet having a person with sleep apnea operating a commuter train is unsafe, and having a person with sleep apnea working on repairs is also dangerous.

How does one comply with ADA, NTSB, OSHA, and EEOC all at the same time here?

One says you have to do Thing A while another says you must not do Thing A.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Here is a serious situation in which it might literally be impossible for an employer to comply with two conflicting federal regulators:



Employees with sleep apnea undoubtedly are protected under the Americans with Disability Act, yet having a person with sleep apnea operating a commuter train is unsafe, and having a person with sleep apnea working on repairs is also dangerous.

How does one comply with ADA, NTSB, OSHA, and EEOC all at the same time here?

One says you have to do Thing A while another says you must not do Thing A.

I have Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Once it was diagnosed and I began to receive treatment it's not been a problem in my job performance. Have those employees get CPAP machines, and if they get into an accident make sure they're using their CPAPs. (The data cards in them store months' worth of usage records.)

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

How does one comply with ADA, NTSB, OSHA, and EEOC all at the same time here?

Workplace safety is a legitimate defense. It's called the Direct Threat affirmative defense. If the person cannot perform their jobs, even with a reasonable accommodation, without risking the safety of themselves or others, then that is not discrimination. (note, if they can perform their job safely with such an accommodation, then the defense doesn't apply and the company must provide that accommodation).

Abiding by federal safety regulations, such as those required by the DOT, is also a defense to discrimination claims. For instance, if a person cannot pass a DOT physical, then the company does not have to hire that person as an over-the-road trucker.

So there isn't a conflict at all.

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

And here I thought Fishy would've posted about the 6th Circuit's gay marriage decision, which now makes it all but inevitable SCOTUS will take it up either late this year or next year as there is now a circuit split.

Frankly, the majority opinion is pure chickenshiat, in my opinion. Their justification for upholding the law is essentially "don't make us do it. Oh wait, you can't. We'll pass the buck up the road instead. Phew."

Read the full opinion and the dissent here.

[jmh]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Frankly, the majority opinion is pure chickenshiat, in my opinion. Their justification for upholding the law is essentially "don't make us do it. Oh wait, you can't. We'll pass the buck up the road instead. Phew."

I don't have time to read the full opinion, but the excerpts quoted in the Detroit Free Press article made it seem like the two judges in the majority bought the argument that this should be decided by the voters, not by the courts. Which is absurd, if you think about it, that a bunch of people (fundies trying to impose Christian Sharia law on the masses) should be allowed to deny to others rights that they themselves enjoy without controversy.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

And here I thought Fishy would've posted about the 6th Circuit's gay marriage decision, which now makes it all but inevitable SCOTUS will take it up either late this year or next year as there is now a circuit split.

Frankly, the majority opinion is pure chickenshiat, in my opinion. Their justification for upholding the law is essentially "don't make us do it. Oh wait, you can't. We'll pass the buck up the road instead. Phew."

Read the full opinion and the dissent here.

I couldn't make it through the whole thing. Do they teach you guys in law school how to write long winded opinions when it could probably be summed up in a couple pages?

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I couldn't make it through the whole thing. Do they teach you guys in law school how to write long winded opinions when it could probably be summed up in a couple pages?

Job security.

[unofan]

I don't have time to read the full opinion, but the excerpts quoted in the Detroit Free Press article made it seem like the two judges in the majority bought the argument that this should be decided by the voters, not by the courts. Which is absurd, if you think about it, that a bunch of people (fundies trying to impose Christian Sharia law on the masses) should be allowed to deny to others rights that they themselves enjoy without controversy.

That's their primary reason, even as they signaled their understanding that it's probably going to be allowed ultimately. But that's what makes it cowardice; they acknowledge they're probably going to be overturned (by voters if not SCOTUS) but didn't have the guts to do what they thought would ultimately be the outcome. Relying on Baker while dismissing Windsor and the denial of cert in the other gay marriage cases is simply finding an excuse to pass the buck. If SCOTUS thought Baker still applied, it could have said so by summarily reversing the other gay marriage cases. While a denial of cert is not binding, it's disingenuous to state that it's meaningless in this sort of context.

Their legal justification is that they nominally bought Ohio's argument that marriage is about procreation. Although I've rarely if ever seen a more ****ing example of faint praise in an opinion. Reading through it I did not get the feeling they believed what they were writing.

The dissent reads like every other circuit's majority opinion.

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

From what I'm reading elsewhere, this is just a three-judge panel, so it will likely get an en banc rehearing before getting kicked to the Supreme Court.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm not sure what thread this item "belongs" in....

They are starting an innovative school safety program in our state in which they have a trained security officer with a trained dog as school safety officer, rather than a policeman with a gun. A veteran started the program to help vets with special training find jobs, and the idea to have them be unarmed and working with an attack dog was the innovation that is winning a lot of favorable attention.

An attack dog could take down an intruder more safely than someone who would shoot and might miss, and also the dog's sense of smell might detect an intruder before a person might spot him or hear him. Also the kids reportedly feel safer with the dog and the vet than they do with a cop and a gun.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'm not sure what thread this item "belongs" in....

They are starting an innovative school safety program in our state in which they have a trained security officer with a trained dog as school safety officer, rather than a policeman with a gun. A veteran started the program to help vets with special training find jobs, and the idea to have them be unarmed and working with an attack dog was the innovation that is winning a lot of favorable attention.

An attack dog could take down an intruder more safely than someone who would shoot and might miss, and also the dog's sense of smell might detect an intruder before a person might spot him or hear him. Also the kids reportedly feel safer with the dog and the vet than they do with a cop and a gun.

Seems like an excellent idea.

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Seems like an excellent idea.

Ditto.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The NRA will demand they arm the dog.