Just when you think judges have made all the bizarre decisions possible there is this.
The U.S. government discriminates against blind people because American currency is not designed to be distinguishable to visually impaired people, a federal judge said on Tuesday.
Yes, that’s right. The bills our nation has been using for 230 years have been ruled illegal by an idiot judge, U.S. District Judge James Robertson
"It can no longer be successfully argued that a blind person has 'meaningful access' to currency if she cannot accurately identify paper money without assistance," Robertson wrote in a 26-page order.
What? For 230 years it could be successfully argued, then one day it couldn’t?
"Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations," he wrote.
The American Council of the Blind had proposed several possible changes to U.S. currency including different size bills for different denominations, embossed dots and raised printing
Stock tip of the day. Buy stock in companies that produce money readers for vending machines.
I suspect this is going to end up in the Supreme Court and likely overturned but is just stunning that one judge would make a ruling that flies in the face of 230 years of history and has such enormous consequences.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Just to clarify, this actually flies in the face of 33 years of practise, rather than 230 - it (mis)construes the Rehabilitation Act 1973.
But to be sure, it does misconstrue it.
I've been in the Netherlands for a couple of Feasts. Their paper money has different colors, and "braille bumps" in the corner.
The currency already is changing colors, anyway, thanks to Treasury upgrades. Adding bumps in the corner probably wouldn't take that much.
Perhaps I'm biased here, from working and volunteering for radio reading services. But this is not idiocy -- it's showing outgoing concern for vision-impaired people.
Richard,
Whether it's good policy is irrelevant. The question that a court must answer in this case is whether that is the policy that Congress adopted in 1973 by passing the Rehabilitation Act - and for thirty+ years, nobody (including, as the Court's opinion itself demonstrates, Congress) thought that Congress had done any such thing.
I might add Richard my wife is blind so I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the disabled. I read her the story and thought it was absurd also. She manages to cope and even had a small business where she dealt with money.
The Netherlands currency is not the most widely circulated and most widely counterfeited in the world as is US currency.
As Simon says,sorry, the point the court is to address is a legal not public policy issue. If the legislative branch wants to debate the topic and change the law then have at it. If judges want to be legislators, let them run for that branch.
If I may throw in the slippery slope argument, where does it end? Being disabled causes hardships, no doubt about it but it is impossible to make things equal.
If I may throw in the slippery slope argument, where does it end? Being disabled causes hardships, no doubt about it but it is impossible to make things equal.
Just because it's "impossible" to make all things equal doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make as many things equal as we possibly can.
Following your logic, we shouldn't have made buildings wheelchair accessible; provide one-on-one supports for autistic children who need it; provide closed-captioning; and any number of things, both legislated and voluntary, that we have done to help those with disabilities able to function more "normally" in society.
Where should we draw the line, then?
That is the question. Undoubtably someone will try to move it further and find some judge to agree.
Fine Gary, make it equal, just not THAT way.
Then what way? What alternatives do you suggest?
Post a Comment