|
|
|
These are articles that have relevance to social work practice, direct nephrology care, research and the like. Neither I nor NCCNSW endorse any particular point of view. This is intended for informational purposes only. Questions should be addressed to the Webmaster.
===========================================================
Action Alert Jan 24, 2003
===========================================================
This message is sent on behalf of ADA Watch, a national network of
organizations united to
protect and strengthen the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law is proud to be a member of
ADA Watch.
ACTION ALERT: HELP PROTECT DISABILITY
RIGHTS and CIVIL
RIGHTS!
Overview:
Next Wednesday, Former Ohio State Solicitor Jeffrey Sutton will receive a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to determine if he should be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals -- just one step away from the Supreme Court. More than 400 nonpartisan disability and civil rights organizations -- and many more individuals from all across the Nation -- have united in opposition to Sutton's confirmation. Sutton's career has been highlighted by aggressive -- and often successful -- efforts to dismantle federal disability rights and civil rights protections. He has actively worked to weaken Federal protections for people with disabilities, minorities, seniors, women victims of violence, Medicaid recipients and others. Sutton -- like too many of the Bush judicial nominees -- has targeted the New Deal, the Great Society, Medicaid, the ADA, Olmstead, and the authority of a democratically elected Congress to legislate remedies when petitioned by American citizens. The 6th Circuit includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee and its decisions frequently rise to the Supreme Court and impact all Americans. This is why we are asking for your help!
Action Needed:
1. Go to www.adawatch.org and sign the electronic petition against Sutton's confirmation by the Senate.
2. Call
and Fax your Senators now and tell
them to vote no
on Sutton. The Capitol switchboard is (202) 225-3121 and the Fax number for the Senate Judiciary Committee is 202-228-0861. (Organizations should Fax their opposition on their organization's letterhead.)
4. Come to Washington for the Official Hearing
on January
29th at 9:30 AM and the "People's Hearing" on the 30th at 11 AM. Schedule visits to your Senators! For travel and housing information contact: Thom.Kirk@verizon.net
5. If you cannot make it to Washington, organize
or attend
local events, visit the local offices of your Senators, hold a vigil to voice opposition to Sutton and other extremist judicial nominees.
Action Schedule:
January 28 - National Call-In Day to Senate:
Vote No on
Confirmation of Sutton, Cook, others!
January 29 - National and Local Events; Sutton
Hearing
(9:30 AM, Dirksen SOB Room 226); Hill visits, phone calls.
January 30 - "People's Hearing" (Dirksen
Senate Office
Building Room 138); Hill visits, phone calls continue all day.
Background:
Jeffrey Sutton has an extremist record, has been a leader and ideologue with the Federalist Society, and has actively worked to weaken Federal protections for people with disabilities, minorities, seniors, women victims of violence, Medicaid recipients and others. He is among those who have influenced the current trend of viewing the ADA as an entitlement benefit rather than a civil rights law. This trend, with judges sitting as benefits managers determining who is among the "deserving disabled," has led to more than 92% of all ADA cases being dismissed on summary judgment -- without any judge or jury review of the alleged discriminatory behavior of employers.
Sutton, as an officer in the Federalist Society,
has led
the "States' Rights" agenda of the unelected undoing the work of a democratically elected Congress. Their threat is not just to people with disabilities, but as described in a recent Washington Post column, Sutton, Cook, Pickering, Kuhl and other Bush nominees selected for their Federalist credentials are targeting the New Deal, the Great Society, Medicaid, the ADA, Olmstead, and Congress itself as they micromanage public policy in the federal courts. In fact, regardless of which party the electorate chooses to control Congress or the White House, these extreme ideologues -- not Conservatives but judicial activists -- seek to weaken and eliminate federal protections concerning health, safety, welfare, privacy, and the environment. Theirs is a commitment to ideology not to justice.
Rights not Charity:
Word on the Hill is that Sutton will be joined at his hearing by Bob Dole and that the focus will be on Sutton's "compassion" and "sensitivity" to people with disabilities. It is troubling that this unified bipartisan effort in the disability community will be turned into a partisan fight by others, but more disturbing is the strategy of focusing on "charity" instead of civil rights. What is in Sutton's heart is really of no concern to us and we have to do the job of directing public attention -- and that of the Senate -- towards his record and the records of other nominees who threaten disability rights. Attempts to focus on Mr. Sutton's "character" will only distract from the need for a national dialogue on Federal-State powers and Congress' intention that the ADA "provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against people with disabilities."
His supporters will make the case that Sutton
was just
acting as a forceful advocate for his clients. It will be up to us to demonstrate that he is an activist who has aggressively sought out cases to support and advance his ideology. We must demonstrate that we oppose Sutton because he clearly has taken an ideological stance against providing effective remedies under federal law for disadvantaged persons in our society. His repeated and zealous advocacy for these positions, and the speeches he has given and the articles he has written on these subjects, demonstrate that this would be a cornerstone of his judicial philosophy if he were to serve on the federal bench. Indeed, Sutton told Legal Times that he "loves this Federalist stuff" and that he and his staff are always "on the lookout" for such cases. Apparently disappointed that the mainstream does not share his radical views, he has also said: "It is frustrating that, in pursuit of particular political goals, the states are not rising up together and defending their authority against encroachments by Congress." (Federalist Society Webpage, May 18, 2001)
Sutton's Record:
And what does Sutton consider "encroachments by Congress?"
- In Garrett, Sutton argued that Congress had no
authority
to give state employees who have been discriminated against the right to sue employers for damages under the ADA. (And did so by denying the existence of a massive record of state discrimination compiled by Congress including forced sterilization of people with disabilities, unnecessary institutionalization, denial of education, and much more.)
- In Olmstead v. LC, Sutton argued that
unnecessarily
keeping people with disabilities in institutions was not a form of discrimination and that states had no duty under the ADA to serve individuals in integrated settings.
- In Westside Mothers, Sutton successfully
argued that
Medicaid recipients cannot sue to protect their rights under the law. States have begun citing this decision to persuade courts to rule that people with disabilities have no right to enforce their rights under Medicaid, Section 504, IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act.
- In Alexander v. Sandoval, Sutton argued that
individuals
cannot privately enforce regulations under Title VI, a race discrimination statute. States have since used Sutton's arguments in efforts to persuade courts that people with disabilities should not be allowed to enforce regulations under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA requiring reasonable accommodations and integration of individuals with disabilities.
These are just a few of the many cases that
Sutton has
sought out to advance the extreme Federalist agenda that places him well outside the mainstream. There are numerous other cases in which he argued to weaken or eliminate federal protections addressing age discrimination, violence against women, religious discrimination and more. These statutes represent years of congressional findings and bipartisan compromises to establish greater fairness in the workplace and provide effective remedies for discrimination.
The human toll of Mr. Sutton's should not be
underestimated. Patricia Garrett, for example had worked for the University of Alabama for 17 years when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Her supervisor made negative comments about her illness and repeatedly threatened to transfer her to a less demanding job because of her condition. Upon her return from medical leave, Garrett was demoted, even though she could still perform the requirements of her job. Under a divided Supreme Court's ruling responding to Sutton's arguments, Garrett has no ADA remedy for this discrimination.
And in the wake of Sutton's arguments in the
Kimel
decision, about 30 other age discrimination suits have been dismissed. In one case, the supervisor who terminated the plaintiff explained that the jury should "think of it like this. In a forest, you have to cut down the old, big trees so the little trees underneath can grow." The plaintiff in this case - who was fired at the age of 48 - has no federal remedy against this blatant discrimination by a state employer.
Threats to Democracy:
The dangers of having unelected insular Federal court judges -- or even Supreme Court Justices -- essentially making public policy cannot be overstated. In enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example, Congress compiled a vast legislative record which documented massive, society-wide discrimination against people with disabilities in such vital areas as employment, housing, transportation and public accommodations. The record included 13 Congressional hearings, 63 public forums across the country attended by over 30,000 people, and thousands of letters documenting discrimination. In many of the cases, state employees were victims of the discrimination. The Court's divided opinion in Garrett means, however, that victims of state employment discrimination cannot use the ADA to remedy it. That Sutton in his arguments, in order to protect powerful interests and advance his Federalist doctrine, could deny the existence of this vast record of discrimination again reveals his commitment to ideology over justice.
Remarkably, Justice Breyer's dissent in the
Garrett case
contained 40 pages of specific examples of state-sponsored disability discrimination. In addressing such public policy issues, Breyer wrote, "Unlike courts, Congress can readily gather facts from across the Nation, assess the magnitude of the problem, and more easily find an appropriate remedy. Unlike courts, Congress directly reflects public attitudes and beliefs, enabling Congress better to understand where, and to what extent, refusals to accommodate a disability amount to behavior that is callous or unreasonable to the point of lacking constitutional justification. Unlike judges, Members of Congress can directly obtain information from constituents who have firsthand experience with discrimination and related issues."
"Moreover," Breyer continues,
"unlike judges, Members of
Congress are elected.
A February 22, 2001 New York Times editorial
quotes Breyer
and echoes the concern regarding Congress' rightful constitutional authority to decide what laws are needed to achieve a just society: As it has before in similar cases, the majority cast its complaint against Congress in the lofty context of federalism and the appropriate balance of power between the states and the federal government. But as Justice Stephen Breyer emphasized in a powerful dissent, the structural impact of the court's ruling was to expand its own power at the expense of Congress's rightful constitutional authority to decide which new laws society requires. That is a strange kind of activism for a supposedly conservative bench. As Justice Breyer noted, "The court, through its evidentiary demands, its non-deferential review, and its failure to distinguish between judicial and legislative constitutional competencies, improperly invades a power that the Constitution assigns to Congress."
It is too early to say where the court will
strike next
with its self-aggrandizing view of federalism. But as Justice Breyer correctly suggested, the new federalism jurisprudence has already inflicted significant damage on the nation's constitutional framework.
Jeffrey Sutton has been at the forefront of the
"new
federalism" that has mocked Congress' authority, ignored a carefully documented history of discrimination, undermined the democratic process, and rolled back civil rights protections passed at the insistence of the People. The Senate should reject this nominee and the President should advance judicial nominees with a commitment to justice rather than ideology. Jim Ward, President ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-661-4722 Fax: 202-318-4040 Email: adawatch@aol.com WEB: www.adawatch.org =========================================================== The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law is
the nation's http://www.bazelon.org/donatesafely.html =========================================================== To contact us with feedback, questions or
praise, email We neither use nor endorse the use of spam.
To be removed
From the Medicare Rights Center:
======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Act Now! Tell Your Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committee to Reauthorize the QI-1 Medicare Savings Program January 17, 2003-Vol. 3, Issue 1 Ouch! Unless Congressional leaders act immediately, a critical federal program that assists low-income people with paying their monthly Medicare Part B premium will disappear. The Medicare Savings Program known as QI-1 (Qualifying Individual Program-1) pays for the Medicare Part B premium for individuals with annual incomes between $10,642 and $11,964, and for couples with incomes between $14,328 and $16,128 (between 120% and 135% of the Federal Poverty Level). QI-1 restores $58.70 each month to the Social Security checks of people enrolled in the program, translating to a much-needed savings of over $700 annually. Presently, more than 120,000 older and disabled Americans depend on this assistance to help pay for additional health care expenses such as prescription drugs and supplemental health care coverage. Fast Relief Your help is urgently needed. Despite bipartisan support in the House and Senate, Congress has failed to reauthorize the program and has only extended the program until March 12, 2003. Representatives of the Senate Appropriations Committee have the power to preserve this crucial benefit by incorporating QI-1 re-authorization. What you can do Call or write your senators and representatives as soon as possible urging them to re-authorize QI-1 for another five years. At minimum, legislators should extend the program through December 31, 2003. If they don't act quickly, their constituents will receive official notice next month that the benefit that helps them afford their Medicare coverage will end. To find contact information for your Senators and Representatives, visit <http://www.congress.org/>. You can also contact key members of the Senate Appropriations Committee voicing your support for the program:
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee: Labor, Health and Human Services 711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-3802 Fax: 202-228-1229 E-mail: arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov <http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?id=497&type=CO&state=PA>
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Committee: Labor, Health and Human Services 731 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-1502 Fax: (202) 224-9369 E-mail: tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov <http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?id=249&type=CO&state=IA>
Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) 522 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-0201 Fax: (202) 224-2354 E-mail via webform: stevens.senate.gov <http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://stevens.senate.gov>
Medical Record · Nearly 16% of Medicare's poor and near-poor have neither private nor public supplemental coverage and rely solely on Original Medicare. · On average, people with Medicare age 65 and over spend nearly a quarter of their income on out of pocket health care expenses. · 44% of low-income people with Medicare report fair or poor health compared to 20% of those with higher incomes. It Stings The QI-1 Medicare Savings Program will expire unless policymakers in Congress are urged to reauthorize it. With your help, we can make QI-1 reauthorization a reality before more than 120,000 Americans--and hundreds of thousands more low-income people with Medicare eligible for the benefit--lose this crucial assistance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Medicare Rights Center (MRC) is a national, not-for-profit, non-governmental organization that helps ensure that older adults and people with disabilities get good affordable health care. All replies should be sent to mrcadvocacyupdate@medicarerights.org <mailto:mrcadvocacyupdate@medicarerights.org>. Tell a friend or colleague about Asclepios today! You may manage your subscription to Asclepios by going to <<http://www.medicarerights.org/asclepiosframeset.html>>
Medicare Rights Center 1460 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, NY 10036 www.medicarerights.org <http://www.medicarerights.org/>
Online Support to Alzheimer's Caregivers article describes website with information and "training" for Alzheimer's caregivers. www.alzonline.net
|