Bobby, this man's father, at one time, was head of the Matheny School
after Walt Matheny died.  I kid you not!
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bobby G. Greer, Ph.
D.
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: US Circuit Court Nominee has a history of opposition to the ADA

Hey Guys,

    This came to me by way of another list. I am not all that sure it
has not
already been post. Also, my apologies to our Canadian, British and
Australian
list members for posting "Yank" business.

Bobby

Sutton Nomination Threatens to Wall Out People with Disabilities

Former President George H. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities
Act
(ADA) into law on July 26, 1990, declaring "Let the shameful walls of
exclusion finally come tumbling down." Nearly 11 years later, his son,
George W. Bush, is creating a federal judiciary that is poised to
rebuild
those walls, using "federalism" as a battering ram. In theory,
federalism
represents a balance between federal regulatory power and the
states' power to regulate themselves. In recent judicial practice, it
represents an activist effort to cut back individual rights by claiming
the
states have the right to decide how to treat their citizens without
federal
intervention.

The Senate will soon conduct hearings on Jeffrey Sutton's nomination to
the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio,
and
Tennessee. Sutton is slated to be one of the leaders of the judicial
attack on the ADA. He is an avowed federalist and supporter "states'
rights." He is also the man who, in October 2000, led the
successful effort of state governments to cut back the ADA in University
of
Alabama v. Garrett.

Sutton has devoted his career to advancing a theory of federalism that
places the rights of state governments above the rights of individuals.
Under this theory, the states have a constitutional right to carry on
their
business without federal government interference. Because federally
recognized individual rights, such as civil rights, impose limits on
state
action, Congress should not be allowed to enact them. Instead, Sutton
would
let states determine what rights their citizens should have.

Sutton's theory, applied just 40 years ago, would have allowed Southern
states to keep public schools, pools, buses, and bathrooms segregated.
Applied 140 years ago, it would have allowed states to continue
enforcing
slavery. Today, it will allow state governments to refuse to hire people
with disabilities, to deny services to the elderly, and to deny public
benefits to people because of their religion.

In Garrett, Sutton claimed that Congress lacked the constitutional power
to
sanction disability-based discrimination by state governments. Mr.
Sutton
argued that prohibiting disability discrimination by state governments
was
"not needed," that state government discrimination was not serious
enough
to arise to a constitutional violation, and that
discrimination on the basis of disability was reasonable. Mr. Sutton
even
claimed there was no evidence of discrimination by state governments
against people with disabilities. He dismissed state sponsorship of the
eugenics movement, which forcibly sterilized people
with disabilities, as insufficient evidence of discrimination.
Nor was Mr. Sutton simply taking the position required by his client.
Rather, Mr. Sutton has made his career by seeking out opportunities to
limit individual rights and broaden federalism. As Mr. Sutton, himself,
has
said, "I love these issues. I believe in this Federalism stuff." Tony
Mauro, An Unlikely High Court Specialist, Legal Times, Nov. 2, 1998 at
8.
This is not his first, or his last, attack on disability rights. In
Olmstead v. L.C. Sutton represented the state of Georgia trying to keep
people with mental disabilities in institutions, even when all their
doctors agreed that community-based treatment was more suitable and less
expensive. Sutton argued to the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, that
unnecessary institutionalization was not a form of discrimination.
In Alexander v. Sandoval, Sutton argued that individuals should not be
allowed to enforce their rights under federal funding statutes.
Therefore,
recipients of federal funding would be free to discriminate on the basis
of
race, disability, religion, and national origin, in
spite of the federal laws that prohibit them from doing so. The Supreme
Court accepted this argument in the context of race. We will soon see
whether Sutton's analysis is applied to disabilities, education, and
Medicaid.
Unlike most political acts, this one cannot be undone when the
administration changes. With life tenure, Jeffrey Sutton will enforce
his
anti-individual rights opinions from the bench for as long as he lives.
He
and his federalist friends will rebuild the walls and stairs and gates
that
exclude people with disabilities and others from their communities. And
those barriers may never come down again.




Tuesday, November 06, 2001 8:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ADA Watch:
Sutton OpEd by Eve Hill, Western Disability Law
Center


Sutton Nomination Threatens to Wall Out People with Disabilities</DIV>

Former President George H. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities
Act
(ADA) into law on July 26, 1990, declaring "Let the shameful walls
of
exclusion finally come tumbling down." Nearly 11 years later, his
son,
George W. Bush, is creating a federal judiciary that is poised to
rebuild
those walls, using "federalism" as a battering ram. In theory,
federalism
represents a balance between federal regulatory power and
the
states' power to regulate themselves. In recent judicial practice,
it
represents an activist effort to cut back individual rights by claiming
the
states have the right to decide how to treat their citizens without
federal
intervention.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Senate will soon conduct hearings on Jeffrey Sutton's
nomination to
the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio,
and
Tennessee. Sutton is slated to be one of the leaders of the
judicial
attack on the ADA. He is an avowed federalist and supporter
"states'
rights." He is also the man who, in October 2000, led
the
successful effort of state governments to cut back the ADA in University
of
Alabama v. Garrett.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sutton has devoted his career to advancing a theory of federalism
that
places the rights of state governments above the rights of
individuals.
Under this theory, the states have a constitutional right to
carry on their
business without federal government interference. Because
federally
recognized individual rights, such as civil rights, impose limits
on state
action, Congress should not be allowed to enact them. Instead,
Sutton would
let states determine what rights their citizens should
have.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sutton's theory, applied just 40 years ago, would have allowed
Southern
states to keep public schools, pools, buses, and bathrooms
segregated.
Applied 140 years ago, it would have allowed states to continue
enforcing
slavery. Today, it will allow state governments to refuse to hire
people
with disabilities, to deny services to the elderly, and to deny
public
benefits to people because of their religion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In Garrett, Sutton claimed that Congress lacked the constitutional
power
to
sanction disability-based discrimination by state governments. Mr.
Sutton
argued that prohibiting disability discrimination by state governments
was
"not needed," that state government discrimination was not serious
enough
to arise to a constitutional violation, and that
discrimination on
the basis of disability was reasonable. Mr. Sutton even
claimed there was no
evidence of discrimination by state governments
against people with
disabilities. He dismissed state sponsorship of the
eugenics movement, which
forcibly sterilized people
with disabilities, as insufficient evidence of
discrimination.
Nor was Mr. Sutton simply taking the position required by his
client.
Rather, Mr. Sutton has made his career by seeking out opportunities
to
limit individual rights and broaden federalism. As Mr. Sutton, himself,
has
said, "I love these issues. I believe in this Federalism stuff."
Tony
Mauro, An Unlikely High Court Specialist, Legal Times, Nov. 2, 1998 at
8.
This is not his first, or his last, attack on disability rights.
In
Olmstead v. L.C. Sutton represented the state of Georgia trying to
keep
people with mental disabilities in institutions, even when all
their
doctors agreed that community-based treatment was more suitable and
less
expensive. Sutton argued to the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully,
that
unnecessary institutionalization was not a form of discrimination.
In
Alexander v. Sandoval, Sutton argued that individuals should not be
allowed
to enforce their rights under federal funding statutes. Therefore,
recipients
of federal funding would be free to discriminate on the basis of
race,
disability, religion, and national origin, in
spite of the federal laws that
prohibit them from doing so. The Supreme
Court accepted this argument in the
context of race. We will soon see
whether Sutton's analysis is applied to
disabilities, education, and
Medicaid.
Unlike most political acts, this
one cannot be undone when the
administration changes. With life tenure,
Jeffrey Sutton will enforce his
anti-individual rights opinions from the
bench for as long as he lives. He
and his federalist friends will rebuild the
walls and stairs and gates that
exclude people with disabilities and others
from their communities. And
those barriers may never come down again.