|
Ed,
I
could not disagree more. Here you make blanket statements with backing
that amounts to something one might hear on talk radio. Did you
actually read the decision or any of the briefs?
>The problem with court
decisions is that oince they are made, activists will "run with them" and, oif
they go too far, iot takes another court case to correct the
situation.
This
is reactionary crap. If the decision had gone the other way would
"activists" run with it? No. How about we wait and see how other
governing bodies react. The entire reason this case got to the Supreme
Court is because the PGA refused to objectively determine whether Casey Martin
was permanently disabled and whether any accommodation could be made that did
not fundamentally alter the game that would allow Martin to play. The
PGA bowed its back and refused to even hear Martin's case. The PGA had the
opportunity to handle this situation. They chose not
to.
>There are, of course, a
number of ways in which it could affect track and field on all levels. The rules
on stimulants, for example. Would they be allowed if an athlete could prove that
they merely correct a "handicap." And that's just one
example.
I am
not sure what to make of the above statement. This is an individual case
with a very specific set of issues. The Supreme Court upheld two
thresholds that similar cases would have to meet. 1. Did the individual
have a permanent disability? Not even the PGA contested that whether Martin had
a disability covered by the ADA.
2. Did the governing body objectively determine whether or
not any accommodation could be made for the individual without a fundamental
change in the nature of the sport or the gaining of competitive advantage?
The Commissioner of the PGA refused to review Martin's
request.
It was a porrly reasoned
decision and I find it interesting and, for me heartening, that the only two
negative votes came from justices whose educational background included a good
bit of real logic
The
other seven are just chopped liver who fell off a train one day and started
sitting on the Supreme Court?
To call a golf pro a "customer"
of the PGA is totally absurd. A customer pays a fee knowing what he is going to
get and what he is not going to get. A professional golfer, if he indeed has to
pay an entry fee, does it in the hope that his reward will be, and usually is,
much greater than what he puts in.
This
"customer or client" argument is one raised by the 9th Circuit Court of
appeals. The decision reads, "On appeal to the Ninth
Circuit, petitioner did not challenge the District Courts rejection of its claim
that it was exempt as a private club, but it renewed the contention that during
a tournament the portion of the golf course behind the ropes is not a public
accommodation because the public has no right to enter it. 204 F.3d 994, 997
(2000). The Court of Appeals viewed that contention as resting on the incorrect
assumption that the competition among participants was not itself public. The
court first pointed out that, as with a private university, the fact that users
of a facility are highly selected does not mean that the facility cannot be a
public accommodation. Id., at 998.18 In its opinion, the
competition to enter the select circle of PGA TOUR and NIKE TOUR golfers was
comparable because [a]ny member of the public who pays a $3000 entry fee and
supplies two letters of recommendation may try out in the qualifying school.
Id., at 999. The court saw no justification in reason or in the statute
to draw a line beyond which the performance of athletes becomes so excellent
that a competition restricted to their level deprives its situs of the character
of a public accommodation. Ibid. Nor did it find a basis for
distinguishing between use of a place of public accommodation for pleasure and
use in the pursuit of a living. Ibid. Consequently, the Court of
Appeals concluded that golf courses remain places of public accommodation during
PGA tournaments. Ibid."
And that;s just one thing wrong
with the reasoning, if you can call it that, of the majority which included
members of the left, center and right of the court
So, in
reality, the US Supreme Court did not actually come up with this reasoning on
its own but rather concurred with the lower court's
decision.
The
decision and dissent aren't very long. I would suggest that if you're
interested you read them. The PGA acted in an arrogant and boorish
manner. They got bit in the ass because of it. The ADA requires that
entities of public accommodation (something the PGA did not argue that it was
not in the Supreme Court) must bear the burden of assessing individual
cases. First, the PGA did not do this. Second, the decision
continually states that fundamental rule changes should not be made to
accommodate the disabled. The US District Court, the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court all held that walking was not a
fundamental rule of golf.
Respectfully Dissenting,
Ben
Here
is a link to the opinions http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-24
|
- t-and-f: Bad decision Ed Grant
- Re: t-and-f: Bad decision Ed & Dana Parrot
- t-and-f: Webb's size Dave Cameron
- Re: t-and-f: Webb's size Randy Treadway
- Re: t-and-f: Bad decision Ben Hall
- Re: t-and-f: Bad decision Mitchell S. Clair, Esq
