DOJ retreats on Biden 'racial equity' agenda

 American Action News:

The Biden administration has backed down from defending two race-based programs that were central to its “racial equity agenda,” the Washington Post reported Friday.

Federal judges ruled that racial preference is unconstitutional in cases regarding the Minority Business Development Agency and the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program, which provided loans and government contracts on the basis of race, according to the Post. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has not appealed the rulings, instead limiting the scope of the two race-based programs.

The volume of federal contracts for “small disadvantaged companies,” which are primarily minority-owned, grew from $59 billion to $76 billion in the first three years of Biden’s presidency, according to the Post.

Legal experts say the DOJ’s retreat stems from fears of losing in a higher court, according to the Post.

“It’s pretty simple — they aren’t appealing because they will lose,” Dan Lennington, a lawyer at Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs in the Minority Business Development Agency case in Texas, told the Post. “And losing at a higher court is worse because it would create important precedent and accelerate challenges to other programs. … Their litigation strategy appears to be containment — they want to prevent the wholesale dismantling of Biden’s racial equity agenda before he leaves office.”

They might well want to avoid a holding that goes far in undermining or even striking down other programs that serve historically discriminated-against minorities,” Noah Feldman, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, told the outlet. “Or they could fear that an appeals court would go further than the district court and find there was insufficient evidence of prior discrimination here, with implications for other programs.”
...

Racial preference would likely be found to be racial discrimination per se.  It really makes no sense to deal with past discrimination with more discrimination against people who were not responsible for the past discrimination.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more