Edge-centric

The U.S. Senate Should Reject Alito for the Good of Disability Rights and Justice for All

By Jim Ward, President of ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights

More info at: www.adawatch.org

Even after the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and vote, one area of Judge Samuel A. Alito’s record remains unexamined by most major media: his views on the rights of Americans with disabilities.

A close look at Judge Alito’s opinions and writings makes it clear that he would likely reverse the historic gains of people with disabilities. He has relied repeatedly on a cramped vision of congressional authority to protect the rights of all citizens, and he has routinely ignored the factual record of discrimination and abuse of people with disabilities.

Alito's decisions as a judge on the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals offer insight into his disturbing judicial philosophy and provide good reasons for why all fair-minded Americans should think twice about seeing him confirmed to the Supreme Court.

• In Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc., in 1999, Alito wanted to dismiss the discrimination claim of a man with mental disabilities because his lawyer used incorrect language in the legal papers. The man’s coworkers had forcibly sodomized him with a broom, stuffed him into a garbage can, beat him and made humiliating remarks about his disability. Fortunately, the other Third Circuit Court of Appeals judges disagreed with Alito’s callous approach.

• In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, Alito wanted to deny a court hearing to a woman who claimed the school reneged on promises to provide her with special seating and other accommodations for her disabilities. Alito’s fellow Third Circuit judges said the standard of evidence that Alito wanted her to meet was so restrictive that “few if any cases would survive” motions to dismiss.

• In Sabree v. Houstoun, Medicaid recipients challenged Pennsylvania's failure to provide community-based intermediate care facilities for individuals with mental retardation. In a precedent-shattering verdict, the trial court ruled that the recipients had no right to go to court to enforce the requirements of the Medicaid Act. The Third Circuit reversed that ruling, declaring that they did. In Alito’s opinion, however, he noted that "the analysis and direction of the District Court may reflect the direction that future Supreme Court cases in this area will take..." This raises an ominous possibility for the direction of Alito’s Supreme Court.

• In Adapt v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Alito held that a federal agency could not be sued for failing to enforce its own regulations on making housing accessible and adaptable for people with disabilities – even though HUD officials had admitted widespread compliance problems.

• In Doe v. National Board of Medical Examiners, Alito’s narrow reading of the Americans with Disabilities Act allowed the board to “flag” the test score of a candidate who had received accommodations during the licensing exam because of his multiple sclerosis. Such flags raise the likelihood of discrimination. Congress meant the ADA to cover broad circumstances and did not spell out every specific practice that it might prohibit.

Many more cases illustrate Judge Alito’s disregard for the claims of Americans with disabilities, and we invite you to examine them yourselves: Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, Helen L. v. DiDario, Three Rivers Center for Independent Living v. Housing Authority of Pittsburgh, and Katekovich v. Team Rent A Car of Pittsburgh, Inc.

These cases and others indicate that Alito’s confirmation would put at risk the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); the Olmstead et al v. L.C. decision against institutionalization; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; the Fair Housing Amendments Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); and other laws and precedents of great importance to people with disabilities.

For these reasons, a coalition of hundreds of national, state and local organizations concerned with these rights has united to oppose Judge Alito’s nomination. They include ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights, ADAPT, the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Judge David Bazelon of the Center for Mental Health Law, the Disabled Action Committee, the National Association of People with AIDS, the National Association of Rights Protection and Advocacy, the National Council on Independent Living, The Polio Society, the World Association of Persons with Disabilities and many more.

The fact that the next Supreme Court Justice will be filling the seat of Justice Sandra DayO’Connor is of particular concern to the disability community. While Justice O’Connor did not take the side of persons with disabilities in all cases, she was the swing vote in a number of important 5-4 disability rights decisions.

With the selection of Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush is making good on his stated intention to fill a Supreme Court vacancy with a nominee in the mold of Justices Scalia or Thomas – Justices who consistently ruled against people with disabilities in these narrowly decided landmark cases. If Judge Alito is confirmed, such 5-4 decisions would certainly go in the other direction and reverse the historic gains of people with disabilities.

We unhesitatingly call on the U.S. Senate to vote against confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jim Ward, Founder and President
ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20004
email: jimward@adawtch.org
Visit Our Website: www.adawatch.org

Your naivete isn't the problem, it's your aversion to using demagoguery for your own ends.

If you do what the adwriters for Broadway plays do with the negative reviews in their blurbs ("this is not a must-see" becomes "...a must-see..."

If you do "...I've watched them [PWD] struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up..." you would be on the right track.

Remember that we now *honor* Olmstead who was the villain of the piece that bears his name! As in commending states for conforming to "the Olmstead decision".

Love.

Remember that we now *honor* Olmstead who was the villain of the piece that bears his name! As in commending states for conforming to "the Olmstead decision".

"We" do not honor Olmstead, history does. The honor was bestowed by Atlanta Legal Aid when it filed the lawsuit that relegated Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson to abstraction ("LC") without their consent or consult, and elevated Olmstead to name.

Advocates finally persuaded Atlanta Legal Aid to ask Lois and Elaine what they wanted, and of course, they wanted name.

At no time in pursuing the lawsuit did Atlanta Legal Aid amend the suit to include their names, nor did they ever inform the courts, including the US Supreme Court.

At no time has Atlanta Legal aid apologized for failing to do so, and at no time has Atlanta legal Aid accepted any responsibility for their misdeed. There is simply no need for them to do so. Elaine has died, Lois is yet alive to receive apology.

Harold A. Maio
Former Consulting Editor
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal
Boston University
khmaio@earthlink.net
239-275-5798 day/night
8955 Forest St
Ft Myers FL 33907