This means a wheel chair bound court reporter had to ask strangers to carry her up steps in order to do her work.
What isn't mentioned is the man, a military veteran, in-prisoned for missing his court date because he couldn't get up the stairs to the second floor court room. He refused to ask strangers to carry him up the stairs as being humiliating and degrading.
New buildings, built since 1970, are supposed to be wheel chair accessible according to TN law. However, many state buildings have ignored this law because there was no penalty applicable to them. So rest areas along interstate highways in TN don't have handicap accessible bathrooms, etc.
The ADA act specifically requires states to retrofit their buildings to meet requirements. Many have refused. The law says that if they refuse the states can be sued.
However, there is an argument that says the Federal Government cannot pass a law allowing individuals to sue state governments. I don't quite understand why not.
The state says, "We don't have the money to improve our buildings. We will make provisions for the handicapped on a case by case issue."
Areas where this is a problem:
Voting booths are not wheel chair accessible. The handicapped can't vote.
Court Rooms are not wheel chair accessible. The handicapped can't be on juries nor can they be in the room when they are the one being prosecuted, without having to be carried into the room.
Fees and License Bureau's as well as Records offices are unaccessible. You can't get licenses or records needed for such things as fishing, adoption, land sales, etc.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a blip from an AP story on the case with a little more detail about what happened to George Lane, the man Dan referred to (and a little about some action outside the court):
quote:Brown's client wants 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 for failing to appear in court when he refused to crawl a second time. Courthouse employees say he also refused offers of help.
Tennessee does not dispute that the courthouse lacked an elevator, or that the state has a duty to make its services available to all. Tennessee Solicitor General Michael E. Moore argued, however, that Lane's constitutional rights were not violated and that he has no right to take the state to court.
Outside the court Tuesday, protesters chanted, "Justice for all, we won't crawl." Then a disabled woman set aside her wheelchair and clambered up the steps and crawled across the court plaza, joined by a handful of supporters. She was stopped at the steps of the court building by about 10 court officers.
"This is what Tennessee is going to make us do," Becky Ogle of Knoxville, Tenn., a disability activist, yelled as she began crawling.
posted
Wow. I'm in East Tennessee right now, and I don't remember hearing anything about it. I guess I need to read the newspaper more closely. It doesn't surprise me, though. The state government, in my opinion, is more concerned with the quality of roads than the quality of life for its citizens.
Any structure built with the assistance of taxpayer dollars, in my mind, must be accessible to anyone who pays taxes. Added cost compared to the frequency such features will be used is something that we'll just have to suck up and take.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The judge was quoted as saying "I don't know what all the fuss is about. He didn't have a leg to stand on anyway."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree completely with Tennessee on this one.
I definitely think the handicapped should be given access to all public buildings, but that really is the state's decision if it's a state building. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government a right to tell them how to build their buildings. If the people of Tennessee feel the handicapped don't need access, that's their business.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll ask what I always ask. What services do you want to cut to obtain the funds for this?
I certainly think all public buildings should be handicapped-accessible, but every budget has its limits.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw part of this on the tv last night. A court recorder is one of the handicapped that is suing. She has, at one point, had a male judge literally take her to the ladies room and put her on the pot because the bathroom has a stairway leading down behond the door. Not one or 2 steps mind you but a flight of steps. Would any of you other women here like to have a strange male putting you on the toilet?
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm betting there's plenty of pork in the state's budget barrel, no matter how lean the times are in TN.
It seems like the state could just figure this out and get it taken care of.
Most importantly, they need a new courthouse that is accessible. The historic one can be used for other purposes. That's what states and communities all over the country have done.
I have zero sympathy with the anti-ADA sentiment when public functions such as courts and licenses are concerned.
They shouldn't have needed a law to set them straight on this either. It's a no-brainer.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Macc - in the scheme of a state budget, replacing the entire courthouse wouldn't be that big a deal. Its a small item, and its a one time item. If they don't like finding the money right away they can always have a bond issue and amortize the price (which is a very common way to fund larger capital projects).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The state argued that people can be carried up and down stairs.
The state argued that the State cannot be sued under this law.
The handicapped argued that being carried up and down stairs was not safe.
Is it going to take somebody in a wheel chair, being carried up a flight of stairs, to be dropped and injured or killed in the ensuing fall, to convince the state this should change?
Or will the state still say they can not be sued, and that the fault lies with the individuals carrying the handicapped, or the handicapped person themselves.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There’s a difference between saying “a state government ought to do something” and “a federal, unelected court should order a state government to do something.”
I doubt anyone thinks a person should have to be humiliated to have access to the state court system. So in this case, the dispute is centered on whether the issue is of such importance that the Federal courts should tell a state government how to allocate its resources.
The claim rests on a Congressional act that seems to give citizens the right to sue states to provide proper access. There’s been suggestion that the act was not intended to provide citizens the right to sue states. Without deciding this issue, I think it’s still possible to find for the plaintiffs.
An equal protection and due process argument can be made – how can wheelchair-bound persons have equal access to courts, essential to their right to due process, if they must subject themselves to humiliating, dangerous assistance to get to the courtroom?
Access to the courts is one of the most basic of rights. Government can infringe on that right not only by outright prohibiting it but also by making exercise of that right too onerous. For example, parade permit requirements are allowed, but are not allowed to be too burdensome for fear of infringing on the right to assemble.
There are also few alternatives to the actual courthouse for this right. While it might be acceptable to have some state services available in a consolidated, separate handicap accessible building, the nature of a courthouse, with its records, special purpose rooms, etc. makes this unfeasible.
posted
The state doesn't really have to bother saying where the fault lies. All that really matters it that the constitution does not give the federal government the right to tell states what sorts of buildings it should build, or in what way people should be allowed access to those buildings.
It's up to the people of Tennessee to figure out what they want to do about that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe that the state is arguing that the handicapped can be carried up the stairs with a straight face. If I were the lawyers representing Tennessee, I would wear a paper bag over my head.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue for the high court in Tennessee v. Lane is whether Congress properly stripped the states of sovereign immunity in enacting Title II of the ADA—thus allowing citizens like Lane to sue the states for money damages when they fail to comply with the act. The Supreme Court has already held, in a 2001 decision in University of Alabama v. Garrett, that Congress cannot strip state sovereign immunity under Title I of the ADA. But Title I concerned employment rights. Title II has to do with arguably fundamental rights—like access to polling places or courts. Other courts of appeals have split on whether Congress can strip states of sovereign immunity when constitutional rights are burdened.
The state of Tennessee is thus in court today protesting that when Congress enforces civil rights laws like the ADA against the states, it offends that state's "dignity." The notion that states somehow have more "dignity" than a man crawling up a staircase is one of the jewels in the crown of the Rehnquist court, where over the past decade a "federalism revolution" has exploded, immunizing states from suit in areas ranging from gender discrimination to disability law to environmental protection.
Especially ghastly exchange: (Note: Moore is Tennessee's solicitor general)
quote:Justice John Paul Stevens asks whether it's true that in 1975 more than a million students were barred from public schools that were not handicapped-accessible, and whether that violates the Constitution. Moore can't answer, but Scalia does: "You don't concede that the Constitution is violated by not providing educational facilities to all handicapped children?" he asks. All you need is a "rational basis" for keeping them out, Scalia points out. "It's enough that the cost would be excessive. So saying that so many handicapped students can't get into schools means nothing at all." Moore agrees.
An additional tidbit - according to an LA Times reporter, Scalia at one time referred to people as "handicaps," using the word as a noun to describe people with disabilities. That use of the language is indicative of his level of scorn for people with disabilities.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Want to be govenor of TN? Find a disabled vet. Put him in front of the camera. Tell how he gave his legs in defence of this country. Then tell how the present TN Government won't let him go to court without crawling on his hands and knees, won't let him vote, won't let him do what everyone else can.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
People like Scalia, that holds such contempt for handicapped people should have a neural block put in place and run around in a wheelchair for a week. His comment that was quoted on tv last night was "they can be carried up stairs " or something to that effect. If thats his view then let hjim put himself in their chairs and find out what its really like. Speaking as a 'handicapped' person (no not paralized but due to uncontrolled seizures) I find that type of attitude abhorrent.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's all still beside the point though. The question still remains, where in the Constitution does it say that the states must give handicapped individuals that sort of "dignity" even if the state doesn't want to, can't afford to, or has some reason not to?
The Supreme Court's job is not to be sympathetic towards handicapped people and create policy accordingly. Their job is to interpret the constitution.
posted
Congress passed the ADA. That told businesses they HAD to comply and make thier businesses handicap friendly. The government itself (local, state and federal) is a business, no?
EDIT: It doesn't have to be 'Constitutionally inclusive" for it to be a law or Constitional either. i.e. the right of privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution but its a right is it not?
posted
The right of privacy does not come from Congress, it comes from a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. So it technically is in the Constitution, though not in so many words. I really should know which Amendment it comes from (I knew last year) but I can't remember.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BUT, the right to privacy is not MENTIONED in the Constitution whatsoever. Not the first time. Does that preclude the right of privacy? No. Neither does the lack of mention for handicapped persons need for equal access to the government mean it isn't a right either. Otherwise, just round us all up and either kill us or sterilize us like what was tried up until 1989. It also wasn't 'Constitutional' to treat blacks and women as equals until something like mid 20th century.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The 14th amendment provides for equal protection under the law. It also grants Congress the power to make laws in furtherance of that protection.
Providing benefits to one class of citizens that are either not available or are available on a different basis can be considered an equal protection issue. Currently, any different treatment based on race or religion is considered highly suspect and requires a “compelling state interest” to permit.
Other classifications, such as gender, are also viewed suspiciously but the standard is not quite so strict.
Congress, however, pretty clearly has the right to define some additional disparities as violating equal protection and to require states to correct them.
I disagree with a lot of the court decisions allowing Congress to intrude on states rights, but this one is a lot less outrageous than some others.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Bob
