Reject Thomas Perez as Labor secretary
Add a deal that preserved an anti-business legal doctrine to advocacy for illegal aliens, assaults on state voter ID laws and other reasons why the Senate must reject President Obama's nominee for Labor secretary, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez.
Senate Republicans hit him hard at an April 18 confirmation hearing over a federal whistleblower lawsuit against St. Paul, Minn., that allegedly was dropped in exchange for St. Paul withdrawing a U.S. Supreme Court case of its own that “threatened to overturn disparate impact, a legal theory that allows minorities to accuse employers of discrimination for using neutral standards that do not yield enough minority hires,” The Washington Free Beacon reports.
Mr. Perez denies brokering such a deal. But the wrongheaded legal doctrine he favors — derived from Supreme Court cases and codified by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in the 1991 Civil Rights Act — apparently was more important to him than the $200 million taxpayers could have gained from the whistleblower case.
Seeking to guarantee outcomes, not opportunities, “disparate impact” perversely necessitates factoring race into hiring decisions. Inviting needless litigation, it has prevented commonsense use of criminal records, high school diplomas and aptitude tests in screening applicants — and unnecessarily driven up business costs.
“Disparate impact” needs to go — whether by court ruling or congressional action. And no supporter of it should be Labor secretary.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.