Search Results for "sotomayor"
Judge Sotomayor on Education, Disabilities
Published May 29, 2009 @ 02:17PM PT
Yesterday's Education Week looks at the education record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s choice for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, this decision is noted:
In Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, decided by the 2nd Circuit in 2006, she joined a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel stating that parents can get reimbursed for private school tuition for a child with disabilities even if the child has never received such services from their home school district. The same issue is now under consideration in Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (Case No. 08-305), which also deals with reimbursement for such “unilateral” placement of children into a private school. ("Reimbursement for Private Placement Again Topic of Supreme Court Scrutiny," May 13, 2009.)
(In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that New York City schools had to reimburse former Viacom executive Tom Freston for private special education for his son, who has learning disabilities; more about this decision is here.)
More of Judge Sotomayor's record regarding individuals with disabilities can be found via the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. While expressing some reservations, such as Judge Sotomayor's decision in the Bartlett case, which involved a person with learning disabilities who was denied accommodations in taking the bar exam, the Bazelon Center states that:
.....on preliminary review of her cases we believe that Judge Sotomayor could be a disability rights champion on the Supreme Court. She seems to understand the language and purpose of the ADA and other disability rights laws. She seems to understand that these laws are intended to have a broad remedial effect on the relationships between persons with disabilities and covered entities like employers, schools, state agencies, and public accommodations. She seems to understand that the decisions of judges, including Supreme Court justices, interpreting these laws have consequences for people with disabilities. And she has been unafraid of taking strong positions on issues where she believes her reading of the law and facts is correct. Based on what we know so far – including the fact that she has spoken in public about her own experience with insulin-dependent diabetes – we look forward to supporting her nomination for the Supreme Court.
"Seems," yes.
Monday Autism News Potpourri
Published July 13, 2009 @ 09:49AM PT
Updates:
1. Fight Club
In bad news for the residents, the actual fight club videos are currently not being allowed as evidence in the trial. This decision is currently under appeal. The defense is asserting that the cell phone with the videos was stolen and illegally accessed by police; the prosecution is asserting that the cell phone was in fact abandoned in a public place (the story as it originally broke btw makes this assertion). The trial will continue regardless of the outcome of the cell phone appeal, however the video is, obviously, a very strong piece of evidence for the defense.
2. Psycho Donuts
On July 25 - 26, a representative each from Psycho Donuts and a mental health organization will discuss the issue of stigma on TV. Some of the donuts are described in the post, and yeah, they are pretty offensive,
"Should my friend, who suffered major head trauma after a drunken driver hit him two weeks ago, enjoy the doughnut M.H.T., for massive head trauma - a doughnut with an X for each eye, a frown and a smudge of red frosting on the side of the frosted face?" writes Stapleton [a staff writer for Palm Beach Post]. "I am not laughing."
Um. Yeah. Me neither.
Broadcast details: Channel 2 KTVU Saturday July 25 at 6:30 a.m.; KICU TV36 on Sunday July 26 at 9 a.m.; Comcast on Demand the week after July 26.
Actions:
1. Matthew Shepard Act
Very soon, as early as this Wednesday, July 15, the Senate will vote on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This act has already passed in the House. Now is the time to get loud and get personal--call or fax your Senators and urge them to support this very important piece of public health and safety legislation.
2. Judge Sotomayor
For anyone who is in a position to do so and is so inclined, a letter of support of Sotomayor to be signed by disability organizations is available. If interested, here is more information and the text of the letter with some signatures.
Diversity, Decisions, and Degrees
Published June 09, 2009 @ 04:00PM PT
Michael Hiltzick's excellent article was really loaded--couldn't quite cover it in 500 words or less! Back to the ideas specifically of diversity and its connection to empathy and interpretation of the law,
[Sotomayor] acknowledged that people of "different experiences or backgrounds" are often quite capable of "understanding the values and needs of people from a different group." But she endorsed the view that "in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought."
Different perspectives, like those people on the spectrum have, are a key piece of diversity, which is needed for not just empathy but also for innovation.
Regarding the perspective of Sotomayor (who has the disability community all a-buzz), her ethnic and disability status aside, she is mainstream all the way when it comes to her degree. Whatever ethnic or cultural distinctiveness she may bring to the Supreme Court if selected, when it comes to educational background, she's got the same cultural bias as all the others.
If selected, will Sotomayor bring a new perspective, empathy, and innovation to the Supreme Court by way of her diversity?
Ethnicity, Empathy, and Eugenics
Published June 09, 2009 @ 09:55AM PT
Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzick wrote 'Empathy' on 1927 Supreme Court might have saved thousands from the knife. The article is primarily about "Sonia Sotomayor's assertion that a judge's ethnic and socioeconomic background might actually influence how he or she interprets the law." And it uses a 1927 eugenics case called Buck vs. Bell to explore cultural bias in Supreme Court decisions and interpretation of law.
The Buck vs. Bell case comes from a particularly dark time in U.S. history--a time when eugenics was routinely practiced on both people with disabilities and people who were just deemed "inferior," such as people who were poor. In Buck vs. Bell there was an 8 - 1 vote in favor of forced sterilization for people who were considered "inferior." Hiltzick questions, does this "reflect basic legal principles or establishment culture?"
To our more modern sensibilities, outright killing or serializing the "unfit" may seem immediately appalling. But eugenics is much more insidious and subtle. The actual definition (source) is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)" Eugenics has been practiced on autistic people in the past and is at great risk of being practiced on us in the future.
Back to the LA Times, Hiltzick asks historian William E. Leuchtenburg, "Might the outcome of Buck vs. Bell have been different were the court not monolithic?" And Leuchtenburg answers, "It's hard to believe that one or two women justices might not have made a difference,...They might have made the other justices confront what was at issue."
Why might women have made a difference? The keyword in the article is "diversity." Diversity, that thing that including people with minority cultural, ethnic, or socioeconomic backgrounds provides. Diversity, that thing which eugenics seeks to extinguish.
More on this in a few hours--
