[nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated

[T. Joseph Carter]

Mike,

It doesn't matter why the NFB got involved, twice.  By doing so, we are
now at least partly to blame if they do lose, because we provided some of
the ammunition used to shoot down the ACB.

At this point my hope is that the supreme court does not hear the case, or
that someone convinces the buffoons in congress to solve the problem on
their end of things.  We have always been in favor of the currency being
revised with features that are useful to us as part of the normal revision
cycle.  We're just finishing one, and a new one will begin in a few years
or so.

If congress acts to make the next revision incorporate whatever features
that would be useful, the ACB's case would not much matter beyond that
point.  That hasn't been our priority thus far, but if collectively we are
as concerned about it as you and I are individually, perhaps the ACB has
elevated the priority level of the issue for us as a matter of protecting
the provisions of 504 from their lawsuit.  If the bill was well-written,
it would have the support of many disability-related groups, the AARP, and
possibly some industry support as well.

In this case, I seem to remember reading that the findings of fact include
that the current state of the currency was discriminatory, leaving only
for the question of whether or not that discrimination falls under the
scope of 504 to findings of law.  I would disagree with you that the
current state is not discriminatory.  It most certainly is, if only
because the issue has come up before, the government had the opportunity
to act, and chose not to with full knowledge of what that inaction meant
to the blind.  I don't consider myself versed enough in the law to say for
sure whether 504 comes into play here.

I don't think there's much chance of the current ADA Restoration Act
coming before the president.  If it did, Bush would veto.  Clinton and
McCain would probably sign.  Obama might, but I wouldn't be so sure of
that.  Congress is too busy being stupid to get that far with it, though.
Fairly typical, I expect not better in an election year.

Joseph

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 01:46:55PM -0700, Mike Freeman wrote:
> Joseph:
> 
> I agree that appeals generally don't deal with findings of fact; they 
> deal with what the losing side contends are errors in findings of law or 
> interpretation of case-law. In this instance, no one is arguing with the 
> facts -- that currency denominations are not discernible by touch. What 
> we *are* arguing about is whether this constitutes discrimination. This 
> is a matter of interpretation of the law. Yes, the District Court found 
> in favor of ACB, i.e., that absence of accessible currency is 
> discriminatory. But the Department of Justice has appealed the decision 
> and I presume that if the Apeals Court rules for ACB, the decision will 
> be appealed to the Supreme Court. Certainly, if D.O.J. prevails, Chris 
> Gray, then President of ACB, said that ACB would take it to the Supreme 
> Court. And there's the rub. It seems to me highly unlikely that, given 
> the current composition of the Supreme Court, ACB would ultimately win. 
> And I'm afraid that in losing, some of the protections we now have under 
> Section 504 might be eroded just as were the protections under Title I 
> of ADA as you indicate. In fact, Title I of ADA largely isn't worth the 
> paper it's written on in that the definition of disability is too broad 
> and there is enough weasel-wording to allow the courts to emasculat the 
> intent of the law. And even if the Dems gain the presidency, I see 
> little prospect that the ADA Restoration Act will pass anytime soon. So 
> I think it behooves us to bear in mind the possible adverse consequences 
> of our actions and whether those consequences are trumped by possible 
> benefits. This is a matter of judgment.
> 
> Finally, I submit that the reason the NFB acted was that a resolution 
> was passed at the convention mandating NFB policy.
> 
> Mike Freeman
> ... "It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly." -- Anatole 
> France