racial preferences

Hard-Left Obama Policies Draw Criticism for Undermining Democracy, Security, and the Rule of Law

by Hans Bader on September 23, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Healthcare, International, Labor, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere, Trade

In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama talked a lot about “bipartisanship,” but in office, he has governed from the far left, on both domestic and foreign policy, by meddling overseas in favor of left-wing would-be dictators, and at home in support of powerful left-wing unions, at the expense of taxpayers, airline security, the Constitution, and the rule of law.  (One possible exception to his left-wing path is his support for the obscene Wall Street bailouts, which disgusted left and right alike, although those bailouts showered billions of dollars on the liberal Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, which was so rich that it didn’t even need the money).

The Wall Street Journal criticizes Obama for seeking to force Honduras to accept the return of its ex-president and would-be dictator, Manuel Zelaya, a demand backed by left-wing Latin American dictators. “Mr. Zelaya was deposed and deported this summer after he agitated street protests to support a rewrite of the Honduran constitution so he could serve a second term. The constitution strictly prohibits a change in the term-limits provision. On multiple occasions he was warned to desist, and on June 28 the Supreme Court ordered his arrest. Every major Honduran institution supported the move, even members in Congress of his own political party, the Catholic Church and the country’s human rights ombudsman. To avoid violence the Honduran military escorted Mr. Zelaya out of the country. In other words, his removal from office was legal and constitutional, though his ejection from the country gave the false appearance of an old-fashioned Latin American coup. The U.S. has since come down solidly on the side of—Mr. Zelaya.”

The Weekly Standard criticizes Obama for blocking travel to the U.S. by Hondurans, even while inviting to the White House, and giving a visa to, an official of Burma’s genocidal government, which has used mass rape and massacres against ethnic minority groups, and used torture and murder against Buddhist monks protesting oppression. The Obama Administration earlier imposed travel sanctions on the people of Honduras to punish them for their Supreme Court’s ruling refusing to allow the return of Honduras’s ex-president dictator to office.  Michael Barone, the dean of American political commentators, chides Obama for undemocratically “opposing the elected Congress, courts and civil society of Honduras.”

The Washington Times calls it “the worst foreign policy ever.” It notes that Obama has bullied “Honduras, which is desperately trying to stave off a socialist takeover by an anti-American autocrat whom the State Department has concluded is worthy of full U.S. support. This has delighted Cuban dictators Raul and Fidel Castro and Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, who are very willing to let the United States carry their water. Venezuela, meanwhile, has signed a major arms deal with Russia, continues to build the anti-Gringo “Bolivarian” bloc, bullies U.S. ally Colombia and plans to launch its own nuclear program.” (Obama’s actions have also emboldened Nicaragua’s corrupt, bullying President Daniel Ortega to behave dictatorially).

The Washington Times reports that “President Obama’s diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission” has praised Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his crackdown on independent media, in remarks in which he “described Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela as ‘an incredible revolution.’” (Chavez recently closed 240 radio stations in Venezuela, and his regime has shot unarmed demonstrators).  Other Obama appointees have Marxist roots or sympathies.   Obama’s green jobs czar was the race-baiter Van Jones, “a self-avowed communist” who remained in office for months, desite controversy, until revelations that he was a Truther who believed that George Bush may have been behind the 9/11 attacks. Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State, Arturo Valenzuela, has a reputation as a loud defender of Venezuelan dictator Chavez’s terrible record on freedom of the press.

The Times also criticizes Obama’s congressional allies for moving to unionize airline security screeners and authorize collective bargaining at the TSA, making it more difficult for lazy or careless employees to be fired for incompetence.  The unions have “urged TSA Acting Administrator Gale D. Rossides to suspend use of the agency’s skills test for screeners. Failure rates this year reached more than 50 percent and were as high as 80 percent at some airports. The skills test shows that large numbers of airport screeners are failing at jobs that are intrinsic to keeping our airports and commercial airplanes secure, and the union’s response is to get rid of the test. The government employees union is also pushing to have failed screeners’ records cleared because pay and bonuses are tied to performance and unsatisfactory employee records prevent those who were fired for poor performance from being reinstated. So much for worker accountability.”

Obama also wants to introduce union-backed collective bargaining at the TSA. (A study found that the TSA is more than twice as likely to fail to detect a bomb as the private security firms it replaced. And TSA’s failure rate is three or four times as high as the few remaining private firms still allowed to handle airline security.)

The Obama administration is also undermining the security of railroad passengers by gutting an expert, highly-rated, anti-terror agency at Amtrak, which Amtrak’s unions hate, despite its efficiency, because it is not unionized.  Political cronyism is also playing a role in the gutting of Amtrak’s Office of Security Strategy and Special Operations (OSSSO).  Ultimately, OSSSO’s “highly-specialized officers” will likely be replaced by unionized employees with ”alarmingly low pass rates” in “basic” classes.

Earlier, the Obama administration ripped off taxpayers and retirees in the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts, in order to enrich the left-wing United Auto Workers union, in unnecessary bailouts that have cost at least $70 billion, drawing criticism even from the liberal Washington Post.  Many commentators argued that the auto bailouts were illegal, such as the Heritage Foundation and Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

In the Washington Post, George Will criticizes Obama for caving in to demands by left-wing unions for protectionist policies like tire tariffs that will harm consumers without saving jobs.   The stimulus package passed earlier this year contained protectionist provisions that backfired, destroying thousands of U.S. jobs by triggering massive retaliation against our export industry while doing little to reduce imports.

The Obama administration has now ordered a private provider of Medicare Advantage services to remain silent about how the Obama health-care plan would destroy the Medicare Advantage programs relied on by millions of seniors.  Eugene Volokh, a leading expert on First Amendment law, says that this violates the First Amendment.

Obama’s congressional allies have decided to conceal the exact language of their health-care bill until after it is voted on in committee, preventing the public from learning about controversial provisions buried in it.  (Earlier versions of ObamaCare have contained lots of provisions that do nothing to enhance health care, like racial preferences that were criticized as unconstitutional by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights).

Obama’s Energy Secretary likens the American people to unruly “teenage kids” who don’t know what’s good for them, and need to be told what to do.  (The cap-and-trade bill he backs to fight global warming would be devastating for the economy and do nothing to protect the environment).

Obama’s health care plan would raise taxes, break promises, harm people with insurance, explode the budget deficit, destroy many inexpensive health-care plans, and take away important freedoms.

Legal Experts and Civil Rights Commission Attack Obama Health-Care Plan As Unconstitutional

by Hans Bader on August 18, 2009 · 5 comments

in Healthcare, Insurance, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony

Constitutional law professor Rob Natelson argues that Obama’s health-care plan is unconstitutional in four different ways. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says that the racial preferences and quotas contained in ObamaCare are likely unconstitutional.

Professor Natelson says that ObamaCare is unconstitutional because:

“1. It is not based on any enumerated power of Congress, not even on a very expansive reading of the power to regulate interstate commerce.

2. It relies on Excessive Delegation of the type held unconstitutional in Schechter Poultry.

3. It violates Substantive Due Process, and interferes with doctor-patient medical decisions to a vastly greater extent than did the laws declared unconstitutional in Roe v. Wade.

4. It violates the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state governments.”

(However, commenters in response to Professor Natel’s post argue that by the time any challenge to ObamaCare reaches the Supreme Court, Obama will have packed the court with liberal justices who are unsympathetic to such arguments).

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has criticized the racial preferences in the health-care bill backed by Obama, saying that they are likely unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision, which subjected race-based affirmative action to “strict scrutiny” and barred federal racial preferences absent evidence that they are needed to remedy intentional past discrimination by the government. (In cases like Rothe Development Corp. v. Department of Defense and the Western States Paving case, the courts have sometimes struck down federal affirmative-action plans sponsored by liberal lawmakers, citing the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision. ObamaCare goes even further in mandating the use of race than past affirmative action plans.)

Fact checkers say Obama is lying about health care. ObamaCare will cost far more than its predicted trillion-dollar price tag.

One of Obama’s own advisers says the Obama Administration’s health-care plan will harm people with insurance while raising their taxes. Obamacare will take away 5 important freedoms, notes a CNN commentary. It will also destroy many affordable health-care plans while breaking Obama’s campaign promises.

OSHA Nominee Is Anti-Gun Ideologue and Junk Science Peddler

by Hans Bader on August 17, 2009 · 6 comments

in Labor, Legal, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk

Obama has nominated David Michaels, an anti-gun activist, to head the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a powerful agency that regulates real and perceived hazards in the workplace. This raises the specter of federal bans on the storage or carrying of firearms in or near workplaces (even though some businessmen in high-crime areas possess guns to protect themselves against armed robbers).

Michaels also has links to wealthy breast implant lawyers, who relied on junk science to drive silicone implants from the market, even though they remained available to consumers in most other Western countries because of their lack of major health risks. (The lawsuits over silicone also harmed patients who need life-saving silicone products like silicone shunts that had nothing to do with breast implants or cosmetic procedures, making them scarcer, less available, and more expensive).

Michaels wants to reverse the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision limiting the use of junk science.

If OSHA succeeds in restricting the storage or possession of guns in workplaces, it may take some time to undo even if a less liberal administration comes to power. For example, in March, a judge blocked a Bush Administration change allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons, claiming that it might have environmental impacts. A judge could rely on similarly conjectural reasoning to block revisions to OSHA regulations needed to repeal an OSHA ban on people storing their guns in the workplace.

Other Obama appointees, like attorney general Eric Holder, are also big supporters of gun control. (Holder has argued that the Second Amendment does not protect any individual right).

Many (but not all) state constitutions protect the right to possess a firearm. But liberal administrations often seek to use federal workplace laws to try to override rights protected by state constitutions or laws. For example, the Clinton Administration argued that a federal law called Title VII overrode California’s broad equal-protection guarantees, which forbade racial quotas and preferences in government contracting, college admissions, and public employment. This “preemption” argument was rejected by a federal appeals court in Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (1997). (Ironically, liberal lawyers often oppose preemption when it expands individual freedom, like federal curbs on baseless state-court lawsuits. The Obama Administration opposes preemption when it would prevent trial lawyers from bringing lawsuits). By the way, discriminatory racial preferences are included in the health-care “reform” bills backed by the Obama Administration, drawing criticism from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Obama Backs Costly Health-Care Status Quo, and Limits on Choice and Competition

by Hans Bader on August 15, 2009 · 3 comments

in Healthcare, International, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Germany is a lot smaller than the U.S., but it has a lot more health insurers to choose from, and cheaper health-care costs. One reason might be more competition: in the U.S., you can’t buy individual health insurance from an out-of-state insurer, since an obsolete federal law lets states block purchases across state lines, taking away interstate-shopping rights that citizens would otherwise enjoy under the the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause. That leaves patients with fewer choices, higher prices, and less competition among insurers, who may control as much as 80 percent of the market in a particular state. In Germany and France, by contrast, you can buy from an insurer anywhere in the country.

The so-called health-care “reform” bills backed by Obama actually worsen this situation, by extending the reach of this anti-consumer restriction on competition beyond individual health-insurance policies to many employer-based health-insurance policies. They do this by gutting the preemption provisions of a federal law known as ERISA.

When John McCain proposed cutting the cost of health insurance by letting Americans shop for cheaper insurance across state lines — the way they can buy almost any other product across state lines — he was bashed by the Obama campaign and Joe Biden.

Washington Post columnists explain how ObamaCare would make the status quo even worse in many other ways as well, while exploding health-care costs. ObamaCare will cost far more than its predicted trillion-dollar price tag. Charles Krauthammer explains how the cost-savings Obama keeps talking about are mythical and non-existent.

Fact checkers say Obama is lying about health care.

One of Obama’s own advisers says the Obama Administration’s health-care plan will harm people with insurance while raising their taxes. Obamacare will take away 5 important freedoms, notes a CNN commentary. It will also destroy many affordable health-care plans while breaking Obama’s campaign promises.

ObamaCare also contains costly racial preferences and affirmative action, subsidies for left-wing community organizers, and preferences for illegal aliens, who are exempt from its taxes and penalties, but could access its benefits due to lack of meaningful eligibility verification safeguards.

Obama is also reenforcing the corrupt political status quo that helped trigger the financial crisis and mortgage meltdown. He wants to create a new bureaucracy to increase the pressure on banks to make risky, low-income loans.

Obama Health-Care Plan Contains Affirmative-Action and Subsidies for Left-Wing Community Organizers Like ACORN

by Hans Bader on August 5, 2009 · 4 comments

in Healthcare, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

The massively-costly health-care reform bills backed by Obama are riddled with provisions mandating “preference” for organizations that exhibit “cultural competency,” a politically-correct code word for a focus on minorities. So racial preferences, not cutting costs or expanding coverage, may end up being the top priority in some cases.

That’s true even for the version of the health-care bill recently passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the least liberal of the 3 House committees responsible for fleshing out the details of ObamaCare. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) says that the health-care bill may become substantially more liberal by the time it passes the House in Autumn.

Mickey Kaus, a Democrat and long-time supporter of universal health-care coverage, calls these affirmative-action provisions special “interest group time bombs” that will turn off moderate voters and may spawn unforeseen problems. John Rosenberg, an expert on antidiscrimination laws, calls them “the ACORN enrichment provision,” saying they will funnel money to left-wing community organizers like ACORN.

ACORN, a beneficiary of the economy-shrinking $800 billion stimulus package, helped spawn the mortgage crisis by promoting “liar loans.” It has also engaged in extensive financial fraud and vote fraud. The Obama Administration has chosen ACORN to help conduct the 2010 census, which will be used to reallocate seats in Congress.

Obama once represented ACORN, which pressures banks to make risky low-income loans. Government pressure on banks to make low-income loans was a key reason for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. Obama’s recent financial-regulation proposals would create a new bureaucratic agency to pressure banks to make even more risky low-income loans.

One of Obama’s own advisers says the Obama Administration’s health-care plan will harm people with insurance while raising their taxes. CNN says Obamacare will take away 5 freedoms. It will also destroy many affordable health-care plans while breaking Obama’s campaign promises. And Obamacare will likely cost far more than predicted.

The health-care “reform” bills Obama backs wrongly exempt illegal aliens from the health-insurance taxes and obligations imposed on citizens, effectively giving them preferential treatment.

While America’s health-care system is very expensive, it is much better at treating and detecting common forms of cancer than most European health-care systems. The Administration’s health-care proposals put these successes in jeopardy, yet they would increase health-care costs even further, while failing to provide health-care coverage as cheap or as universal as in Europe.

Obama’s support for racial preferences isn’t limited to health care. The Administration is also winking at racist voter intimidation, by letting the racist, antisemitic New Black Panther Party get away with using racial epithets and physical intimidation to drive white voters away from the polls in Philadelphia.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of White and Hispanic Firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano

by Hans Bader on June 29, 2009 · 3 comments

in Economy, Employment, Features, Labor, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Zeitgeist

The Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of white and Hispanic firefighters, who were denied promotions when the City of New Haven threw out the exam they scored highest on, citing the fact that no black firefighter scored high enough. In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Court reversed a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, including Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court.

The appeals court, in an unpublished ruling designed to avoid scrutiny, had held that the City could throw out the test simply because the test excluded more blacks than whites, meaning it gave rise to a “prima facie” case of unintentional “disparate impact” discrimination (disparate-impact is when a test excludes substantially more members of one race or gender than another). The Supreme Court held that this was not reason enough to use race, at least where the test measures useful job skills.

“Frank Ricci, a firefighter in New Haven, Conn., worked hard, played by the rules, and earned a promotion to fire lieutenant. But the city denied him the promotion because he is not black. Ricci sued, along with 16 other whites and one Hispanic firefighter. After a 7-6, near-party-line vote by a federal Appeals Court to dismiss the lawsuit,” the Supreme Court decided to review the case. A three-judge panel including Judge Sotomayor had “dismissed” of Ricci’s case in an unpublished ruling, “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep the case quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both,” says the National Journal.

The lower courts have divided on how much public employers can use race-based affirmative action to offset tests or selection criteria with “disparate impact” without violating the Constitution. Some courts, like the moderate Seventh Circuit, have said that that public employers can’t use race at all to offset such tests or criteria, since the purpose of affirmative action is to remedy constitutional violations, and the Constitution (unlike some civil rights statutes) isn’t violated by disparate impact, but rather requires a showing of racism or intentional discrimination. Others, like the more liberal First Circuit, say that race can be used to offset tests’ “disparate impact” even if the test measures useful job skills and thus is “job-related,” as long as substantially more minorities fail it than whites — meaning that the “disparate impact” is only a “prima facie” or half-proven case, which doesn’t actually rise to the level of illegality (the civil-rights statute, Title VII, only bans tests with a “disparate impact” if they are not “job-related”).

In the Ricci case decided today, the Supreme Court took a middle path, saying that a mere racial imbalance (or “prima facie” case of disparate impact) is not enough to use race, but that disparate impact can be enough reason if there is “strong evidence” that the test not only excludes more blacks than whites, but also is not “job related” in the sense of requiring knowledge irrelevant to the job. Since the City of New Haven had no strong evidence that the test was not job-related, its decision to throw out the test was illegal.

However, it cautioned that this standard only limited statutory challenges to affirmative action, as opposed to Constitutional challenges, applying this standard to Title VII claims so that employers won’t face a discrimination claim no matter what they do (for intentional discrimination against whites if they throw out the test, or unintentional “disparate impact” discrimination if they keep the test that no blacks passed). It said that public employers might face additional requirements before they could use race under the Constitution (which, unlike Title VII, does not recognize “unintentional” discrimination or “disparate-impact” liability): “Our statutory holding does not address the constitutionality of the measures taken here in purported compliance with Title VII. We also do not hold that meeting the strong-basis-in-evidence standard would satisfy the Equal Protection Clause in a future case. As we explain below,because respondents have not met their burden under Title VII, we need not decide whether a legitimate fear of disparate impact is ever sufficient to justify discriminatory treatment under the Constitution.”

Thus, the Court’s decision does not abrogate the rulings of the federal appeals court in Chicago, the Seventh Circuit, which ruled in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 534 (7th Cir. 1997) Biondo v. Chicago, 382 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2004), and Builders Association v. Chicago, that to defeat a constitutional lawsuit brought by victims of affirmative action or reverse discrimination, a public employer cannot rely on a test or selection criterion’s disparate impact. For example, Chief Judge Posner ruled in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 534 (7th Cir. 1997), that to use race to favor minorities, a school district must show that it once “discriminated intentionally” against them, since that is “the only kind of discrimination that violates the equal protection clause.”

Today’s decision does, however, effectively abrogate court rulings saying that a test’s mere “prima facie” disparate impact is enough to justify using race, given that the Supreme Court in United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 206 fn. 6 (1979) said that the limits on affirmative action are tougher under the Constitution than under civil-rights statutes like Title VII, which was “not intended to incorporate” the tougher “commands of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” (The rulings allowing race to be used to offset tests’ racial imbalances are also hard to square with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that race-based affirmative action is supposed to be a “last resort,” see Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231, 1247 (2009)).

Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, noted that there was an additional, independent ground for reversing the appeals court decision throwing out the white and Hispanic firefighters’ lawsuit: that the whole issue of tests’ alleged “disparate impact” was a red herring and a “pretext” because the appeals court ignored evidence that the City’s motivation was not a sincere desire to avoid “disparate impact” but rather just an excuse to engage in racial favoritism towards blacks.

Even if the City had legitimate motives for throwing out the test, if it also had illegitimate or mixed motives, that would render it liable under Title VII (and potentially the Constitution), under the Supreme Court’s “mixed-motives” precedents. (See Mount Healthy Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle (1977), and Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)). The city could only rely on the test’s “disparate impact” if that were its “actual purpose” for using race, and could not use any problems with the test as a justification if they “did not actually precipitate the use of race.” (See Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 908 n.4, 910 (1996)).

Next Entries →