The
new Supreme Court nomination is revving up in the media.
People are beginning to dissect, discredit and possibly
devour the nominee, Judge John Roberts. Both parties
claim to want Americans to get the "real
story" about Roberts' personal and legal past.
Most pundits are harping on abortion rights, gay
rights and civil rights. I'm worried about further
damage to the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has made it
perfectly clear in numerous decisions that he doesn't
favor using the act to accommodate disabled people. An
example is the 2001 case PGA Tour v. Martin. The PGA
didn't want to provide disabled competitor Casey Martin
with a golf cart, citing the "walking rule"
used to fatigue able-bodied players during the course of
the event. But Martin was already fatigued.
Scalia, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, argued
that a person with a disability acknowledged by the act
was not allowed accommodations while participating in a
public sporting event. Martin won.
Scalia also blatantly uses his religious beliefs to
interpret the law. This is a direct violation of
separation of church and state.
For example, in March 2000, the Santa Fe Independent
School District wanted to have student-led prayers
before at-home school football games. Two families
believed "overtly Christian" prayers were
inappropriate at a public school, violating the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with the
two families. In dissent, Chief Justice William
Rehnquist, joined by Scalia and Thomas, noted the
"disturbing" tone of the court's opinion that
bristled "with hostility to all things religious in
public life."
President Bush wants more justices like Scalia, and I
fear his new nominee will become Scalia's protégé'.
Bush likes to nominate based on personal criteria.
Because little is known about Roberts as a judge, he
likely will be confirmed for personal reasons.
Something similar happened with Oliver Wendell
Holmes. He had held only one judicial position, in the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, for 20 years. President
Theodore Roosevelt thought Holmes' views were compatible
with his own. He nominated Holmes to the Supreme Court
in 1902, and the Senate confirmed him without objection
two days later.
Holmes turned out to be a key player on the court.
However, he was prejudiced. In the 1908 case Muller v.
Oregon, the state of Oregon enacted a law prohibiting
women from working more than 10 hours a week. Holmes
sided with Oregon, citing associate Justice David
Brewer's unanimous opinion that physical and social
differences between the sexes warranted a different rule
respecting labor contracts.
Roberts' confirmation likely will be decided by
personal criteria. If he's confirmed, I hope his rulings
won't be decided that way.
McKee, a wheelchair user, is an Albuquerque
writer, poet and producer. You can e-mail Barbara
at chairgrrl@chairgrrl.com.
Her column runs on Tuesdays.
