Supreme Court: States Can Be Sued Under Disability Law

snip

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that Congress did not exceed its constitutional authority when it adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and subjected states to lawsuits by disabled people seeking damages.

more (only two paragraphs in the article so I only snipped one)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/court_disability_dc

Edited to add link to longer article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=16&u=/ap/scotus_disabled

Hmmmm...wonder how the voting split?
:eyes:

voted with Souter,Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens.

What happens to the next case if Bush* sleazes back into power, O'Connor retires, and her replacement turns out to be, say, James Inhofe or Donald Rumsfeld? (I doubt that David Duke could obtain Senate confirmation, but you never know...)

Think about it. Think long and hard before you vote third party or just stay home because Kerry isn't a DUer.

We were getting concerned. Thought economics would force a change to the ADA. Not yet.

the high court has repeatedly limited the effect of the ADA, so Monday's outcome was unexpected.

At issue in Lane's case was the right of private citizens to try to pursue alleged violations of the ADA in federal courts. Advocates for the disabled claimed that the fear of hefty damage awards was a powerful tool to force state governments to follow the requirements of the ADA.

"The unequal treatment of disabled persons in the administration of judicial services has a long history" that has persisted despite anti-discrimination laws, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The case began when Lane tried to sue the state of Tennessee for up to $100,000 for what he claimed was humiliating treatment that violated the ADA.

Lane crawled up the Polk County courthouse steps once for an appearance in a reckless driving case, but was arrested in 1996 for failing to appear in court when he refused to crawl a second time. Courthouse employees have said he also refused offers of help.

Tennessee did not dispute that the courthouse lacked an elevator, or that the state has a duty to make its services available to all. The state argued, however, that Lane's constitutional rights were not violated and that he had no right to take the state to court.

The state claimed that Congress went too far in writing the ADA, because the Constitution says a state government cannot be sued in federal court without its consent.

Stevens said Congress had ample evidence of discrimination when it wrote the part of the law at issues in Lane's case. Called Title II, it guarantees that the disabled will have access to government services.

"It is not difficult to perceive the harm that Title II is designed to address," Stevens wrote. Congress enacted Title II against a backdrop of pervasive unequal treatment in the administration of state services and programs, including systematic deprivations of fundamental rights."

The case is the latest in a series of conflicts over states' rights and the powers of Congress, but it did not come out like most of the others.

In a series of cases since the late 1990s, O'Connor has sided with the court's core conservatives to form a five-member majority that has gradually expanded the sovereign rights of state governments while limiting federal control and congressional power.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, chief architect of that states rights push, dissented in Monday's case. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Amendment 11 has been the excuse for sorry action on the part of states since it was ratified. Any idiot can look at it and tell, though, that it doesn't protect states from suits by their own residents.

AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

I struck up an acquaintance here at the mighty DU with one of the plaintiffs in the case! She told me to expect a decision on May 17, 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. I told her that, if they did so, they had better do the right thing. We were both right!

She may be back at DU shortly. You'll like her. In the spirit of "Flori-duh" or "Tex-ass", she has bestowed upon her adopted state the name of "TenNOsee"!

New holiday: Equality Day

Brown v. Board of Education
Tennessee v. Lane
Wedding day in Mass.

The Lane decision will go down as one of the most important strikes for civil rights in the history of the United States! People who aren't interested in disability rights don't realize how close we all came to the federal government deciding that accessing a court room is not a civil right. When you think of all that being in a court room implies--the right to counsel, the right to a jury, the right to know the witnesses against you, the right to speak in your own defense--it's astounding that a state would have the gall to suggest that these things don't matter.

MMM... mmm... your crumbs are so delicious.

This only applies to courthouse access. My son is not really a full citizen as his 14th ammendment rights have already been overturned on the basis of the 11th ammendment. This is still a states' rights court. THIS IS STILL A CONFEDERATE COURT.