|
Edited on Thu Jul-21-05 04:10 PM by HawkeyeX
ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights Opposes Supreme
Court Nominee Judge John Roberts
"Out of the Mainstream" Nominee Poses Threat to Americans with Disabilities
Statement of Jim Ward, Founder and President of ADA Watch/NCDR:
(Washington, DC) ADA Watch/NCDR is opposed to the nomination of Judge John
Roberts to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
At a time when our Nation could have greatly benefited from the selection of
a mainstream consensus nominee, people with disabilities --indeed all
Americans -- should be saddened and disturbed by President Bush's choice of
Judge John Roberts to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the U.S.
Supreme Court.
While Justice O'Connor did not take the side of people with disabilities in
all cases, she was the swing vote on important 5-4 rulings involving the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including historic cases such as
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) and Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509
(2004).
With the selection of John Roberts, President Bush is making good on his
stated intention to fill a Court vacancy with a nominee in the mold of
Scalia or Thomas -- Justices who have consistently ruled against people with
disabilities in these and other landmark cases. If confirmed, such 5-4 votes
would surely go in the other direction and reverse the historic gains of
people with disabilities.
ADA Watch/NCDR is a coalition of hundreds of disability, civil rights and
social justice organizations united to defend and promote the human rights
of children and adults with physical, mental, cognitive and developmental
disabilities.
Why we are opposed to Judge John Roberts:
Narrow Interpretation of the ADA:
After the Sixth Circuit ruled that a woman with serious manual impairments
was substantially limited in one or more of her life activities, the Supreme
Court agreed to hear the case (Williams v. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., 224
F.3d 840 <2000>), and Judge Roberts argued and briefed the case on behalf of
Toyota. His briefs and oral argument distorted the facts of the case and
minimized the extent of Ella Williams' disability.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believed Judge Roberts's misrepresentations
and decided in favor of Toyota. It also came down with a new and very strict
test for disability. This test has made it much more difficult for ADA
plaintiffs to prove that they are disabled with devastating impact on people
with epilepsy, diabetes, mental illness and workplace injuries.
The impact of Robert's distortions is evident in subsequent decisions
including Three Rivers Center for Independent Living v. Pittsburgh Public
Housing Authority, which barred a Center for Independent Living (CIL) from
filing suit to hold a Public Housing Authority accountable for violating
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Thus the consequences of Judge Roberts's distortions of the record have been
wide-ranging: they helped to create yet another unfortunate Supreme Court
precedent that has further impeded the goals of the ADA.
Judicial Activism:
Roberts' record demonstrates his inclination to strike down federal
anti-discrimination statues and to further limit congressional power,
narrowly construe the ADA, and restrict the ability of plaintiffs to get
into federal court.
Extremist Ideology:
Roberts declared that the current Supreme Court is not conservative enough
specifically in response to the October 1999 term during which the
conservative majority judicial activism included the striking down of the
Violence Against Women Act and throwing out an age discrimination suit on
federalism grounds.
Mr. Roberts is a member of two right-wing legal groups that promote a
pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the
National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's
Legal Advisory Council.
The Federalist Society's overarching goal is to roll back domestic policy to
before FDR's New Deal and its members (including Jeffrey Sutton, William
Pryor, and others) have specifically targeted the ADA. The National Legal
Center For The Public Interest has attacked ADA civil rights protections in
numerous forums including its publication of a document entitled "Civil
Rights and the Disabled: The Legislative Twilight Zone."
Narrowing of Civil Rights Protections:
After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the
Voting Rights Act (City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 <1980>), Roberts was
involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from
overturning the Supreme Court's action. The Supreme Court had recently
decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be
violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a
discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this
interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize
that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.
In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress
had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action
program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).
As expressed in one case where he would have invalidated a provision of the
Endangered Species Act, his exceedingly restrictive view of federal
law-making authority - more restrictive than the current Supreme Court's -
could threaten a wide swath of workplace, civil rights, public safety and
environmental protections.
In his years of service as a political appointee in the administrations of
Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Judge Roberts also helped craft
legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the
reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state
separation and the voting rights of African Americans.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
