Federal Court Finds Obama Administration's Discrimination Allegations Laughable

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
We should certainly hope that a teacher, nurse, police officer etc, has had a criminal background check. Heck I wouldn't even want a criminal flipping my burgers if his crime was public spitting.
Or how about an accountant that did time for embezzlement?

It now seems that the Obama administration wants businesses to forgo an important safety check because it discriminates against black people. I can see why the court made the below statement. Here, let me get the second laugh in....


The only thing not laughable is that our tax dollars were wasted on this.

Now this is a judge after my heart.


In a scathing 34-page opinion published this week, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Titus lambasted the administration’s expert data, writing that it was “laughable”; “based on unreliable data”; “rife with analytical error”; containing “a plethora of errors and analytical fallacies” and a “mind-boggling number of errors”; “completely unreliable”; “so full of material flaws that any evidence of disparate impact derived from an analysis of its contents must necessarily be disregarded”; “distorted”; “both over and under inclusive”; “cherry-picked”; “worthless”; and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”



That kind of whipping from a federal judge has got to hurt though it’s unlikely to deter the administration from spending more taxpayer dollars to file frivolous lawsuits against employers who use the checks to screen job applicants. Judicial Watch wrote about this a few weeks ago when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws, sued two large companies that screen criminal background records claiming that the checks disproportionately exclude blacks from hire


Obama EEOC Blasted in Background Check Discrimination Ruling
edit on 22-8-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
So criminal background checks are racist now?

Does this mean the Obama admin will be suing itself for attempting to implement broader background checks on gun owners?

The duplicity in this admins logic is astounding.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   

The Obama administration’s claim that criminal background checks discriminate against minority job applicants suffered a lashing from a federal court that found the allegations “laughable,” “distorted,” “cherry-picked,” “worthless” and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”


Talk about cognitive dissonance:

Background check for gun owners

Bacground checks for illegal immigrants

Both effect minorities.

Always trying to have it both ways Obama is.
edit on 22-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



Even better yet? I have been fingerprinted by the FBI for my non government job, let alone a measly background check. And this was dictated by a government agency. My company had no choice, and if I wanted to keep my job, neither did I.
edit on 22-8-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   
This, from the man who can't produce a legitimate birth certificate. Very interesting.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
If the examples are anything like this you know your taxpayer dollars are going to waste at the EEOC:


A few years ago the EEOC bullied a national healthcare firm into paying nearly half a million dollars to settle a discrimination lawsuit for requiring employees to speak English on the job, even though federal law allows employers to require it. . Years earlier, the EEOC sued the Christian charity Salvation Army for national origin discrimination because it required two Hispanic employees at its Massachusetts thrift store to speak English on the job.


www.judicialwatch.org...

I guess equal opportunity isn't equal enough when you fail to meet job qualifications. When one looks at the collective actions of the Obama administration like making the IRS target conservative groups or the Justice Department giving NBPP a pass it's pretty clear there's a ridiculously pro-minority bias that they cater to. Oddly enough that's the base of the Democratic party's voter support. Partisan policy implementation much?
edit on 22-8-2013 by Asktheanimals because: added comment



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
So criminal background checks are racist now?



I have a background. P

I guess if background checks are racist then too many black people have backgrounds.. Let's work on that one first please, before allowing all criminals to work that is.

Credit checks however... I don't like those.. I have debt because I never had insurance and had infected skull removed on my left side.. $30,000 in debt later, and I still work hard..

Fair is Fair, but guess what? It isn't just black people who can't get a job.. It's everybody..
edit on 8/22/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
None of the 'usual suspects' have come to the thread to back up the Obama administration on this one yet.

I suppose it takes time to come up with an excuse for this crap.
Will they blame a former administration?



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
holy cow!
Still nothing from the Obamapologists! I guess it is untouchable for them. No excuses?

I would have thought that they could have at least tried to say that the judge 'misunderstood' the points or something.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Hey Obama - if criminal background checks disproportionately ( but truthfully) show more blacks than whites commit crimes then -

That's not Racist - That shows that YOUR administration hasn't done anything to help fix the problem over the last 6 years.

It shows in general white people can be statistically trusted to be better employees than blacks.

Hey black man in the white house playing President.. Get Clue and Do something about it you jerk !

Honestly folks.. I'm 45 and I have Never seen any President be so STUPID on so many issues.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


I wonder if we could somehow . . . clone Thomas Sowell . . . and insert several of him into the Supreme Court . . . and if

the movie TRADING PLACES could somehow do a switcheroo with Thomas Sowell and the O.

Otherwise, this sort of nonsense will continue and get worse, imho.

/sort of joke off

Sigh.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
None of the 'usual suspects' have come to the thread to back up the Obama administration on this one yet.

I suppose it takes time to come up with an excuse for this crap.
Will they blame a former administration?


i noticed that as well, i guess the hopium is wearing thin these days, when a track record like this administration has becomes apparent.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Hey Obama - if criminal background checks disproportionately ( but truthfully) show more blacks than whites commit crimes then -

Not defending hapless government policy SNAFU's but in the interest of denying ignorance....

More blacks are convicted of Crimes than whites. It necessarily doesn't mean that they commit more crimes than whites with the same income and educational level. More Blacks are pulled over, harassed and prosecuted for drug crimes and executed than whites. The criminal justice system is systematically biased. I find that typical white authoritarians are absolutely clueless about institutional bias against dark skinned people.

www.urbandictionary.com...

People manufacture the truth that keeps them comfortable I guess.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


So apparently, the Obama administration is stereotyping black people as criminals?

Because the only group of people a background check descriminates against are criminals.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
What is really scary is that we still got three years left with this POTUS.

Maybe we will all be saved , he can just declare Martial law get rid of congress an save us from ourselves.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skorpy
What is really scary is that we still got three years left with this POTUS.

Maybe we will all be saved , he can just declare Martial law get rid of congress an save us from ourselves.


Naturally he will lie about why it is being implemented. Let's call it "enhanced security measures."



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 



There are simply no facts to support a theory of disparate impact, the judge writes, further stating: “By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the “Hobson’s choice” of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.”


By forcing businesses into a 'take it or leave it' option, we now see clearly how the Obama Administration is using every tactic to further their commie agendas.

I bet we have many federal employees with criminal backgrounds that have been hired.

It's pretty obvious.


 


Originally posted by butcherguy
holy cow!
Still nothing from the Obamapologists! I guess it is untouchable for them. No excuses?

I would have thought that they could have at least tried to say that the judge 'misunderstood' the points or something.



They won't be here for this one.

They only go after the low hanging fruit. And even that sometimes is difficult for them.
They normally have to create a diversion and then start the argument. They prefer the crab apples on the ground better.

This issue is too high on the branch, and is beyond the Alinsky rules and debate 101 tactics.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Better have your papers ready.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

The Obama administration’s claim that criminal background checks discriminate against minority job applicants suffered a lashing from a federal court that found the allegations “laughable,” “distorted,” “cherry-picked,” “worthless” and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”


The judge's selection of descriptions of the allegations match up perfectly with the overall assessment of the administration in general, actually...

Of course the admin doesn't want background checks. Hell, their Attourney General is a known arms smuggler... they sure as hell wouldn't want to see that on the dude's career "carFAX" report, now would they?



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 



“laughable”; “based on unreliable data”; “rife with analytical error”; containing “a plethora of errors and analytical fallacies” and a “mind-boggling number of errors”; “completely unreliable”; “so full of material flaws that any evidence of disparate impact derived from an analysis of its contents must necessarily be disregarded”; “distorted”; “both over and under inclusive”; “cherry-picked”; “worthless”; and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”


Yep, those words pretty much sum up the entirety of this administration's policies, opinions, and actions.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join