For EPA air pollution junk science aficionados only.
The Wall Street Journal editorialized today about Obama Labor Secretary nominee Thomas Perez:
Memories are short in politics, and none so short as in the Senate, where we hear Labor Secretary nominee Thomas Perez now has the 60 votes necessary for confirmation, including support from several Republicans. So allow us to refresh the record.
As the Justice Department’s civil-rights chief, Mr. Perez struck a legal quid pro quo last year to have the City of St. Paul, Minnesota withdraw an antidiscrimination case from the Supreme Court. That case, Magner v. Gallagher, would have clarified the law surrounding “disparate impact” theory, which uses statistics to prove discrimination without intent or specific cases. Mr. Perez has used the legal theory to extort multimillion dollar settlements from banks.
The House Oversight Committee subsequently conducted a year-long investigation and interviewed the senior Administration officials involved in the deal, including Mr. Perez. Documents and testimony from other witnesses are at odds with the account Mr. Perez gave to the committee, including who came up with the idea of the quid pro quo, who supported it, and whether or not it was properly vetted. Mr. Perez has not explained these inconsistencies.
The highlighted text above describing the “disparate impact theory” can be used to explain EPA air pollution junk science, i.e.,:
uses statistics to prove harm from air pollution without science or medical evidence from actual bodies.