Tennessee Fights To Discriminate Against the Disabled - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

redravin40 · 08-19-2003, 08:53 PM

I don't usually post in Politics but this one is a great example of how screwed up some states priority's are.

Here is the LINK

Quote:

August 18, 2003 -- A group of disability rights advocates is flying to Nashville to join Tennessee advocates in a demonstration next Monday, Aug. 25, to pressure Gov. Phil Bredesen and the state attorney general to withdraw the Tennessee . v Lane appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case asks the Court to declare Title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act unconstitutional. The Court has scheduled the case to be heard in the fall term, starting in October.

The case concerns George Lane and other disabled people who could not access Tennessee's county courthouses due to architectural barriers. Title 2 of the ADA requires state and local government services to be accessible. Lane, an amputee, sued the state when he found he could not get to the courtroom to face charges in a revoked driver's license trial. He had to crawl up the steps. (More about the case.)

"Logically, it would appear impossible that the Supreme Court could rule against the right of people with disabilities to be able to enter a state courthouse, which is the basis of the case," says HolLynn D'Lil, one of the Californians traveling to Tennessee. "However, the Supreme Court will not be ruling on the "merits" of the case -- that is, they will not be deciding whether or not it is okay for people in wheelchairs to have to crawl up state courthouse steps. That is not the question before them. That is not the question they have decided to answer.

What the court will be deciding, she says, "is whether or not to apply a previous ruling they have already made. In their 2001 ruling, University of Alabama v Garrett, the Supreme Court ruled that the portion of Title 1 of the ADA which covers states as employers is unconstitutional.

"It is very, very likely," she continues, "that they will also apply that same decision and its rationale to Title 2 of the ADA, which requires that states not discriminate against people with disabilities in the delivery of their programs and services.

In the Garrett decision, says D'Lil, "the Supremes ruled that the portion of Title 1 of the ADA that says individuals can sue state employers for money damages is unconstitutional because Congress failed to justify the passage of the ADA because it failed to show that states have ever discriminated against people with disabilities and therefore, the ADA is unjustified and therefore unconstitutional.

"They said that all the evidence collected by Congress showing that states have discriminated against people with disabilities was only the stories or anecdotes of the people with disabilities themselves and therefore without validity.

"They also ruled that it is okay to discriminate against people with disabilities if it will save the states money."

The question, say advocates like D'Lil, is whether the Supreme Court this fall will apply this same rationale and ruling in Tennessee v Lane.

"Of course, they will!" says D'Lil. "There is no reason to make any assumptions that the bias of the Supreme Court against Americans with disabilities has changed since the Garrett decision."

D'Lil is among those national activists who believe the only hope for disability rights is for advocates to get Tennessee to withdraw the case. That's exactly what California activists did with another Title 2 case that had been up before the Supreme Court this last year: they got California to withdraw the Medical Board of California vs. Hason case.

Walter Park from San Francisco, and Sarah Bates and Brandy Sellers from The Independent Living Resources of Northern California Board in Chico, CA, will be traveling to Tennessee with D'Lil to help Tennessee activists do what California activists did: get the state to withdraw its appeal.

"Our board is very concerned about this threat to the civil rights of people with disabilities, and we want to offer what support we can to the Tennessee advocates," said Bates. California ADAPT members and activists from across the nation are also expected in Tennessee later in the week to help the Tennessee effort.

There is more information and links at the site but basically Tennessee wants the right to keep the court building inaccessible to people in wheelchairs or to have to spend the money on TTY's and interpreters for the deaf.
This is the kind of thing that sets this country back to the dark ages.
States rights were used as an excuse to keep black people from voting and now it is being used to keep people with disabilities from being able to do the things you and I take for granted.

Easytiger · 08-19-2003, 11:03 PM

Damn...that really pissed me off!

Loki · 08-20-2003, 04:09 AM

... it really should be compulsory for all public facilities to have disabled access, i think (or, where this is impossible, due to heritage or other reasons, a simple extendable ramp that may allow a wheelchair to bypass any steps).

regarding the article, i found this part pretty funny though:

"They said that all the evidence collected by Congress showing that states have discriminated against people with disabilities was only the stories or anecdotes of the people with disabilities themselves and therefore without validity. "

heh, someone should send into congress a snapshot of the steps outside a Tennessee courthouse.

lurkette · 08-20-2003, 05:22 AM

wtf?

I would have expected a more enlightened response, even from Tennessee. That's ridiculous.

Lebell · 08-20-2003, 08:23 AM

Ok, that's just messed up.

I think the ADA and it's supporters are sometimes draconian and way out of line, but all public buildings should be 100% accessable.

Bill O'Rights · 08-20-2003, 08:55 AM

WTF...is this not 2003?!? <b>All</b> public buildings need to be accesible...<b>PERIOD</b>...end of subject...no questions asked.

JumpinJesus · 08-20-2003, 09:08 AM

Quote:

"They also ruled that it is okay to discriminate against people with disabilities if it will save the states money."

Wow. I don't even know what to say to a statement like that.

mml · 08-20-2003, 10:08 AM

Ludidrous and unconscionable. In a country as wealthy and supposedly advanced as ours, we should be ashamed that all facilities are not accessible to the disabled. However, it should be a given that public facilities, that many of the disabled help to pay for, should be accessible.

I am curious if there is anyone out there who, in their heart of hearts, thinks that restricting access is a good thing. I don't buy the answer that there is not enough money, a steady progress towards refitting old buildings should be simple to organize and a well planned out fundraising drive centered on major businesses and philanthropic groups could help defray the costs.

I am continually stunned by the lack of vision so many people possess.

chavos · 08-20-2003, 07:17 PM

meh...i now add several more names to my "gee, that's stupid" list.

I have no farking clue how they could call the ADA unconstitutional, but still keep the Civil Rights Act of 1965. And i've loove to see them try that.

prb · 08-21-2003, 12:31 PM

There they go again -- those wacky Supremes: Protecting the rights of States to discriminate under the banner of "States Rights." We love this in the South. It's why we now vote Republican. The Garrett case was a 5 to 4 decision brought to us by the same justices who stopped the Florida recount and put Dubya in the White House: Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Conner. According to them, State discrimination against the disabled was forbidden only if Congress could show that "irrational" discrimination was taking place and, in the 5 justices' view, "a half dozen" cases of discrimination was insufficient proof of a need to enforce the law (the ADA) against the States. The 4 dissenting justices , however, pointed out that a congressional task force had shown hundreds of examples of State discrimination against the disabled in areas such as employment, access to public buildings, public transportation and on and on. Who was telling the truth and using the truth to reach an honest and just decision: The 5 justices who took note of only a "half dozen" instances of State discrimination against the disabled or the 4 justices who say there were hundreds of cases of such discrimination found by the congressional task force? Well, the findings of a congressional task force are part of the public record, but the dissenters listed the findings by State as a footnote to the Garrett opinion -- TAKE THAT, you frikkin' Nazis! In reality, of course, nothing can embarrass the right wing faction of the Supreme Court . They have a legacy to leave and if they must tell lies to reach the ends they seek -- well, so be it. The case is: University of Alabama v. Garrett, 121 S. Ct. 955 (2001) <<<<<<<<<<//Rant over.

mystmarimatt · 08-22-2003, 11:47 AM

that pisses me off like mad, i am disabled, though i'm not in a wheelchair, but discrimination like that is tough, i've been there. i'm sorry, but having to crawl up stairs, that's not exactly an "oops" situation. it's fucking inhumane. Next, they'll be saying that it's should just shoot all of us disabled folk, if it'll save a couple bucks.

docbungle · 08-23-2003, 02:06 PM

*TaLon gets hit by car and becomes paralyzed*

Of course you wouldn't change your tune at all if that happened, because, in your mind, you would know that you are no longer equal to all those "real people" out there, who do just fine with out all those stupid ramps and things.

Survival of the fittest? Fine; you get pnemonia=fuck off, get over it. No doctor for you. You get strep throat=fuck off, get over it. You get stabbed in the neck? Fuck off; no doctor for you. Your mom gets hit by a car/shot in the head/looses a limb=fuck off, get over it.

A question for one of the "fit"(TaLon): How in the hell is making a public place accessible to a handicapped person any inconvenience to you? How does a ramp impede on your way of life?

ObieX · 08-29-2003, 07:45 AM

Seriously... add a fucking ramp. Its not that difficult. Its not that expensive. It costs more to do all this bullshit than to add a ramp. Worried it'll ruin the "look" of the building?.. add 2.. there.. symmetrical.. problem solved.

Xell101 · 08-29-2003, 06:10 PM

It's funny because it is so god damn stupid.

WhoaitsZ · 08-30-2003, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TaLoN
im sorry for the people that are disabled, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't equal to a perfectly fit human. survival of the fittest reigns supreme. don't whine about not getting special treatment because you will lead to the downfall of the human race.

funny. i've seen folk banned for simply defending themselves and this post is fine and dandy. not to mention his .sig being no less offensive as someone refering to white people as whigger or a black person a nigger.

as for you TaLoN, if you are partially serious then you should pay attention to what is said.

if the gov is so fucked to have inaccesible courthouse i say then, until fixed, how would they react if all laws broke simply not apply to those unable to enter.

the best thing to do will never happen. i suggest every single person who votes against fixing the building have their legs removed. then they won't be important.

we can spend thousands on furniture. if you can't afford to make/buy a ramp then you should quit what you're doing and get a job at mcdonalds.

government saying they shouldn't spend money to do so is nothing short of a rediculous lie.

every single person who support these sick fucks, i hope god blessess you with serious injury or death. you asked for it.

spectre · 08-30-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TaLoN
im sorry for the people that are disabled, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't equal to a perfectly fit human. survival of the fittest reigns supreme. don't whine about not getting special treatment because you will lead to the downfall of the human race.

Yeah, you're right, people like Steven Hawking, Franklin Roosevelt, John Milton and various others never contributed anything because they were disabled. I know plenty of fully able bodied people that couldn't accomplish half of what some disabled people can. Sorry, but your statement is so ridiculous that it's sickening.

GakFace · 08-30-2003, 01:47 PM

build the ramp!.... Man I walk, and I still like the ramp to the stairs

08-20-2003, 05:22 AM	#4 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	wtf? I would have expected a more enlightened response, even from Tennessee. That's ridiculous. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

08-20-2003, 08:23 AM	#5 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Ok, that's just messed up. I think the ADA and it's supporters are sometimes draconian and way out of line, but all public buildings should be 100% accessable. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

08-20-2003, 08:55 AM	#6 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	WTF...is this not 2003?!? <b>All</b> public buildings need to be accesible...<b>PERIOD</b>...end of subject...no questions asked. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

08-20-2003, 10:08 AM	#8 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	Ludidrous and unconscionable. In a country as wealthy and supposedly advanced as ours, we should be ashamed that all facilities are not accessible to the disabled. However, it should be a given that public facilities, that many of the disabled help to pay for, should be accessible. I am curious if there is anyone out there who, in their heart of hearts, thinks that restricting access is a good thing. I don't buy the answer that there is not enough money, a steady progress towards refitting old buildings should be simple to organize and a well planned out fundraising drive centered on major businesses and philanthropic groups could help defray the costs. I am continually stunned by the lack of vision so many people possess. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

08-22-2003, 11:47 AM	#11 (permalink)
mystmarimatt Omnipotent Ruler Of The Tiny Universe In My Mind Location: Oreegawn	that pisses me off like mad, i am disabled, though i'm not in a wheelchair, but discrimination like that is tough, i've been there. i'm sorry, but having to crawl up stairs, that's not exactly an "oops" situation. it's fucking inhumane. Next, they'll be saying that it's should just shoot all of us disabled folk, if it'll save a couple bucks. __________________ Words of Wisdom: If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

08-19-2003, 11:03 PM	#2 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	Damn...that really pissed me off!

08-20-2003, 04:09 AM	#3 (permalink)
Loki Psycho Location: Drifting.	... it really should be compulsory for all public facilities to have disabled access, i think (or, where this is impossible, due to heritage or other reasons, a simple extendable ramp that may allow a wheelchair to bypass any steps). regarding the article, i found this part pretty funny though: "They said that all the evidence collected by Congress showing that states have discriminated against people with disabilities was only the stories or anecdotes of the people with disabilities themselves and therefore without validity. " heh, someone should send into congress a snapshot of the steps outside a Tennessee courthouse.

08-20-2003, 07:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	meh...i now add several more names to my "gee, that's stupid" list. I have no farking clue how they could call the ADA unconstitutional, but still keep the Civil Rights Act of 1965. And i've loove to see them try that.

08-21-2003, 12:31 PM	#10 (permalink)
prb Psycho	There they go again -- those wacky Supremes: Protecting the rights of States to discriminate under the banner of "States Rights." We love this in the South. It's why we now vote Republican. The Garrett case was a 5 to 4 decision brought to us by the same justices who stopped the Florida recount and put Dubya in the White House: Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Conner. According to them, State discrimination against the disabled was forbidden only if Congress could show that "irrational" discrimination was taking place and, in the 5 justices' view, "a half dozen" cases of discrimination was insufficient proof of a need to enforce the law (the ADA) against the States. The 4 dissenting justices , however, pointed out that a congressional task force had shown hundreds of examples of State discrimination against the disabled in areas such as employment, access to public buildings, public transportation and on and on. Who was telling the truth and using the truth to reach an honest and just decision: The 5 justices who took note of only a "half dozen" instances of State discrimination against the disabled or the 4 justices who say there were hundreds of cases of such discrimination found by the congressional task force? Well, the findings of a congressional task force are part of the public record, but the dissenters listed the findings by State as a footnote to the Garrett opinion -- TAKE THAT, you frikkin' Nazis! In reality, of course, nothing can embarrass the right wing faction of the Supreme Court . They have a legacy to leave and if they must tell lies to reach the ends they seek -- well, so be it. The case is: University of Alabama v. Garrett, 121 S. Ct. 955 (2001) <<<<<<<<<<//Rant over.

08-23-2003, 02:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	TaLon gets hit by car and becomes paralyzed Of course you wouldn't change your tune at all if that happened, because, in your mind, you would know that you are no longer equal to all those "real people" out there, who do just fine with out all those stupid ramps and things. Survival of the fittest? Fine; you get pnemonia=fuck off, get over it. No doctor for you. You get strep throat=fuck off, get over it. You get stabbed in the neck? Fuck off; no doctor for you. Your mom gets hit by a car/shot in the head/looses a limb=fuck off, get over it. A question for one of the "fit"(TaLon): How in the hell is making a public place accessible to a handicapped person any inconvenience to you? How does a ramp impede on your way of life? __________________ Bad Luck City

08-29-2003, 07:45 AM	#13 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Seriously... add a fucking ramp. Its not that difficult. Its not that expensive. It costs more to do all this bullshit than to add a ramp. Worried it'll ruin the "look" of the building?.. add 2.. there.. symmetrical.. problem solved. __________________ We Must Dissent.

08-29-2003, 06:10 PM	#14 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	It's funny because it is so god damn stupid.

08-30-2003, 01:47 PM	#17 (permalink)
GakFace Go Ninja, Go Ninja Go!! Location: IN, USA	build the ramp!.... Man I walk, and I still like the ramp to the stairs __________________ RoboBlaster: Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.