Friday, January 16, 2015

Repeal the Civil Right Act and stop moving track

     H/T Maggie's Farm
After all the confusion, that these happen, and frustration, that no one pays it any attention, I find yet another unnoticed track change. I am still amazed this little country or civilization hasn't collapsed in on itself. NRO - Phi Beta Cons
 "Unfortunately, as George Leef points out in today’s Pope Center feature, the Supreme Court’s decision in Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) effectively precluded employers from basing hiring decisions on aptitude test results."
We can thank the Supreme Court
  "The justices ignored the legislative history and gave deference to the federal agency charged with enforcing the law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)."
 Clueless legislators pass a law blueprinting some new track for society. The executive writes the rules to build the track. They both cheer how great they are for doing so and painting a big sign "PULL" on the ground throw. The judicial stares at the switch, looks good to me. No One looks at where the new track goes.

Worse, no one looks back with any thing resembling clear eyes. We not only don't look to fix the old we build new ground throws for society (Ocare) and economy (CFPB). over and over.

 "Instead of accepting the company’s offer to pay for workers who wanted to complete their high school education, he filed suit, alleging that the company’s policy violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Someone will always sue and the Supreme Court like its precedent protecting. Only repealing the underlying law will.
  "Furthermore, the EEOC declared that if a test had a disparate impact (that is, minority workers were disproportionately affected), the employer would bear the burden of proving that it had a “business necessity” for using the test."
 Parts of the Civil Rights Act might be worth keeping. All of this is not. If the whole thing has to go just to rid us of "disparate impact" I am on board. More recently one could look at the New Haven firefighter case,  Ricci v. DeStefano

No comments: