Here's yet another outrageous adventure of the Obama DOJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...164907484.html
I believe this link will allow even non-subscribers to the WSJ to view the article. Beware, though. It IS the evil WSJ. Merely clicking on the link above might cause your head to explode if you're of a particular leftie persuasion.
This time I'm not going to say what the subject is, or who the author is. That makes it easier for certain people to exercise their right to remain ignorant.
- mastermind238
- 04-17-2012, 08:59 AM
- mastermind238
- 04-17-2012, 09:04 AM
OK, I was wrong. Non-subscribers cannot see the article.
So here it is. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE HOW CORRUPT OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS, AVERT YOUR EYES NOW. DO NOT READ.
Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2012
by Mary Kissel
The Obama administration hasn't been shy about pushing its civil-rights agenda. But when the Department of Justice coached Saint Paul, Minn., to drop a pending Supreme Court case that the city thought it would win, the agency overstepped its bounds and let its ideological agenda trump justice. Now a House oversight committee is expanding its investigation, and rightly so.
On Tuesday, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R., N.C.) sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting detailed information about the role Justice played in the withdrawal of Magner v. Gallagher on Feb. 10. The case was scheduled for oral argument on Feb. 29. When the city withdrew the case, it denied the court the opportunity to rule on whether disparate-impact analysis, a type of statistical method, is legal under the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
Most lawyers figured the court would rule disparate-impact analysis (which doesn't take intent into account) illegal because the act doesn't include explicit language allowing it. Such a finding would have seriously crimped Justice's civil rights chief Tom Perez, who has championed the use of disparate impact to threaten banks with race-discrimination lawsuits. Justice has admitted Mr. Perez talked to St. Paul's mayor and the plaintiffs regarding Magner.
Mr. McHenry's letter asks some simple questions. Why did Justice interfere in a case it wasn't a party to? Who talked to whom, when and why? Did Justice offer the city anything in return for withdrawing its appeal? The committee sent a similar letter on Feb. 27 to St. Paul Mayor Christopher Coleman, who largely declined to cooperate and could be subpoenaed if he continues to stonewall. Don't be surprised if Justice takes the opposite tack and comes out swinging to defend a policy that's key to its political narrative, with justice as an afterthought.
So here it is. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE HOW CORRUPT OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS, AVERT YOUR EYES NOW. DO NOT READ.
Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2012
by Mary Kissel
The Obama administration hasn't been shy about pushing its civil-rights agenda. But when the Department of Justice coached Saint Paul, Minn., to drop a pending Supreme Court case that the city thought it would win, the agency overstepped its bounds and let its ideological agenda trump justice. Now a House oversight committee is expanding its investigation, and rightly so.
On Tuesday, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R., N.C.) sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting detailed information about the role Justice played in the withdrawal of Magner v. Gallagher on Feb. 10. The case was scheduled for oral argument on Feb. 29. When the city withdrew the case, it denied the court the opportunity to rule on whether disparate-impact analysis, a type of statistical method, is legal under the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
Most lawyers figured the court would rule disparate-impact analysis (which doesn't take intent into account) illegal because the act doesn't include explicit language allowing it. Such a finding would have seriously crimped Justice's civil rights chief Tom Perez, who has championed the use of disparate impact to threaten banks with race-discrimination lawsuits. Justice has admitted Mr. Perez talked to St. Paul's mayor and the plaintiffs regarding Magner.
Mr. McHenry's letter asks some simple questions. Why did Justice interfere in a case it wasn't a party to? Who talked to whom, when and why? Did Justice offer the city anything in return for withdrawing its appeal? The committee sent a similar letter on Feb. 27 to St. Paul Mayor Christopher Coleman, who largely declined to cooperate and could be subpoenaed if he continues to stonewall. Don't be surprised if Justice takes the opposite tack and comes out swinging to defend a policy that's key to its political narrative, with justice as an afterthought.