Constitution, disability rights under attack (yes, again)

Disability rights advoicates this morning held "crawl-ins" around the country in support of George Lane, an amputee who was forced to crawl up the steps of an inaccessible Tennessee courthouse in order to answer minor traffice charges against him.

Lane is now suing Tennessee for violating his civil rights.

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/drn/tennvlane011204.html

"The event is intended to illustrate the humiliation George Lane and others have been forced to endure," says ADAWatch.. Lane, one of the plaintiffs, had to crawl up the stairs to a Tennessee courtroom because the courthouse, like many in Tennessee, was not accessible, in violation of Title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Lane, who lost a leg in a traffic accident, went to the Polk County courthouse in September 1996 to answer charges of driving with a revoked license.

The New York Times's Adam Cohen reports that
While Mr. Lane crawled up, he says, the judge and other courthouse employees "stood at the top of the stairs and laughed at me." His case was not heard in the morning session, he says, and at the lunch break he crawled back down. That afternoon, when he refused to crawl upstairs again, he was arrested for failing to appear, and put in jail. ... . The employees who laughed at him offered to carry him upstairs, he says, but he was afraid they would intentionally drop him.

Beverly L. Jones, another plaintiff in the case who also uses a wheelchair, is a certified court reporter who said her ability to earn a living was "significantly impeded" because she could not gain access to more than 20 courthouses in middle Tennessee, where she works. Jones, a single mother of two, agreed to be carried to some courtrooms but she lost patience after she had to be carried to an inaccessible restroom by a judge.

Cohen also points out, in a cogent piece from Sunday's edition, why you should be scared to death about this, even if you don't have a disability:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/opinion/11SUN3.html (yes, it's registration, but you're a serious news junkie, right?)

In their briefs, the states show little sympathy for the disabled plaintiffs. Court reporters like Ms. Jones have no constitutional right, they say, to "ply their trade" in accessible courthouses. Nor, they insist, does Mr. Lane have an absolute right to attend his own criminal trial. As support, they cite a case in which a defendant was removed after repeatedly interrupting his trial and threatening to kill the judge. In any case, the states argue, Tennessee offered to "assist him upstairs," the offer Mr. Lane rejected because he feared he would be purposely dropped.

But their main argument is states' rights — that the federal government has no power to protect the disabled this way. The states insist the 11th Amendment gives them immunity from suits for damages under the A.D.A. They cite the Supreme Court's own declaration that to force the states to defend themselves against these lawsuits would deny them "the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities."

This interpretation of the 11th Amendment is wildly inconsistent with its plain language, which bars only lawsuits against states brought by "citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." But conservatives on the Supreme Court, who insist in other contexts that they are "strict constructionists," have held that the amendment also limits suits brought by a state's own citizens. Even John Noonan Jr., a conservative federal appeals court judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan, has called the link between the 11th Amendment and state immunity "imaginary" — and dangerous.

As off base as the Supreme Court's states' rights rulings have been, they have prompted little popular outrage. The doctrines are too obscure for most people to follow, and "respect the power of Congress" is not much of a rallying cry. But these decisions have deprived Americans of important protections, like the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act. And they have made it easier to discriminate against older workers, blind people and cancer victims.

So now it's come to this: The Felonious Five (O'Connor is basically our only slim hope here) are about to start issuing rulings that directly contravene the Constitution. This is not a matter open to interpretation or nuance, like deciding what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" or "unreasonable search and seizure". This amounts to the Court, or at least the fascist majority thereof, stating that black is white, with a perfectly straight face, and getting away with it.

But what can we do? The (in)justices are appointed for life, right?

Yes, but like any other Federal officials, they can be impeached! There is one historical precedent (yes, Asscroft, I looked up in my almanac): Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House in 1804, but acquitted in the Senate.

http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/pastjustices/chase.html

I ask you, if gross malfeasance such as issuing rulings that have no basis in the Constitution is not an impeachable "high crime and misdemeanor", what is?

Of course, we have to get the Repukes out of control of Congress first...