FW: Urgent Message from Dart!

[Guest guest]

For your information...please scroll down for message from ADA Watch.

Also, please remember that TODAY is the deadline for making hotel

reservations to attend the LDA Leadership Training and Policy Seminar in

Washington D.C. June 15-18. Please call Hotel Washington,

1-800-424-9540; they will continue to accept reservations at the LDA

group rate after today, as long as rooms remain available. Your voice is

needed in the nation's capitol!

Jane Browning

Executive Director

Learning Disabilities Assocation of America - LDAA

4156 Library Road, Suite 1

Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1349

412-341-1515

FAX: 412-344-0224

jbrowning@...

Come visit our web site at http://www.ldaamerica.org

LDA - Leading the way for people with learning disabilities and their

families

> -----Original Message-----

> This informational alert is sent to you from www.adawatch.org

> <http://www.adawatch.org/>

>

> Dear Friends:

> In the urgent message below, Dart, Ralph Neas, and I ask you

> and/or your organization to join us in sending a message to President

> Bush and the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding D. , the

> nominee to the 3rd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. As outlined

> below, has a disturbing record on civil and disability rights

> and is yet another member of Federalist Society whose agenda endangers

> the ADA and other civil rights protections. We need to get our

> message out by close of business next Tuesday. While we are again

> asking for your support in opposing a judicial nominee, please

> remember that this makes only the third nominee we have formally

> opposed out of the 98 nominees that the President has forwarded to the

> Senate. Please contact us ASAP at ADA Watch@... or call me at

> 202-467-2359.

> Best, Jim Ward

>

> May 15, 2002

>

> Dear Friends:

>

> The disability community has done an outstanding job in mobilizing the

> grassroots in opposition to threats to the civil rights of people with

> disabilities. From responding to Supreme Court rulings impacting the

> ADA to fighting the ADA Notification Act and opposing Sutton's

> nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals - disability rights

> advocates and organizations have united as an influential force. Once

> again, we need to act as the Senate Judiciary Committee is currently

> considering the nomination of Judge D. to the Third

> Circuit Court of Appeals.

>

> Specific disability organizations that have expressed written concern

> regarding D. include the ADA Watch Action Fund, American

> Association of People with Disabilities, National Disabled Student

> Union, and the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. We now ask that

> you join us in opposing this nomination because of a well-documented

> and troubling pattern of disregard and hostility for the legal

> protections impacting people with disabilities, minorities and other

> protected classes of individuals.

>

> Last July, more than 200 law professors sent a letter to the Senate

> Judiciary Committee suggesting guidelines for consideration of federal

> judicial nominees. Because federal judicial appointments are for life

> and significantly affect the rights of all Americans, and because of

> the Senate's constitutional co-equal role with the President in the

> confirmation process, the professors' letter said, nominees must

> demonstrate that they meet appropriate standards for confirmation.

> These standards include " an exemplary record in the law, " a

> " commitment to protecting the rights of ordinary Americans, " a " record

> of commitment to the progress made on civil rights, women's rights,

> and individual liberties, " and a " respect for the constitutional role

> Congress plays in promoting these rights. "

>

> Based on these criteria and a review of D. 's record as a

> judge and his judicial philosophy, many individuals and organizations

> have concluded that Judge should not be promoted from his

> current position as a federal trial judge to an even more influential

> lifetime position on the Third Circuit. Accordingly, People For the

> American Way and other civil rights, women's, and environmental

> organizations have written to the Senate Judiciary Committee to

> express opposition to his nomination. In opposing his confirmation,

> the National Employment Law Association writes that " Judge D.

> 's employment law decisions and interpretations of the

> discrimination laws are antithetical to the full recognition of

> individual rights. He demonstrates a disregard towards employees and

> other individual plaintiffs who attempt to vindicate their rights

> under the law. "

>

> In reference to Judge 's judicial philosophy, we point to a 1993

> speech delivered to the Pittsburgh Federalist Society in which he laid

> out a view of federalism asserting that if the Constitution does not

> specifically grant a power to the federal government, Congress cannot

> pass a law dealing with it. If such a view were to prevail on the

> federal bench, it would negate the ADA and many civil rights laws.

> Such extreme conservative activism places out of the mainstream

> and his confirmation would only strengthen the Federalist's attempts

> to further limit Congress' authority to protect civil rights, equal

> rights, and the environment.

>

> Judge 's disregard for the civil rights of individuals with

> disabilities goes beyond his speeches and is evident in his rulings.

> In 1995, he shocked disability advocates by ruling against the U.S.

> Department of Justice in its case against the Commonwealth of

> Pennsylvania under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act

> for the inadequate treatment of persons with mental disabilities. In

> United States v. Pennsylvania, Judge held that egregious lapses

> in basic care of adults confined to an institution for people labeled

> with mental disabilities did not violate the constitution. At trial,

> the Department of Justice brought evidence of horrific care by a

> Pennsylvania facility, including instances of flies and ants on food,

> maggots and ants on residents, residents sitting in wheelchairs for

> hours without having their diapers changed, injuries sustained due to

> insufficient treatment of epilepsy or improper handling and

> transferring procedures, overmedicating, and more. Judge

> concluded that each of these amounted to an isolated incident and that

> the State had no constitutional obligation to enhance the residents'

> level of functioning. This decision was affirmed by a panel of one

> Nixon and two Reagan appointees. The Washington Post criticized him

> for concluding that, because the residents " primary needs " were met,

> there were no constitutional violations despite the fact that care

> was, in Judge 's understated words, " frequently not optimal. "

>

> In addition to the threats this confirmation would present to

> disability rights, we also share the concerns raised by other

> organizations, including the National Organization for Women, that,

> for ten years after being appointed to the federal bench,

> improperly maintained his membership in a club that excludes women

> from membership. His continued membership violated the Code of

> Conduct for United States Judges, which prohibits federal judges from

> being members of clubs that invidiously discriminate on the basis of

> race, sex, religion, or national origin. Judge 's membership in a

> discriminatory club, his failure for ten years-in violation of

> governing ethical standards-to resign from the club despite his

> commitment to do so during his district court confirmation hearing,

> and the contradictory explanations he has offered for his actions all

> raise serious issues about 's judgment and candor.

>

> Finally, ethical questions have also been raised regarding a highly

> publicized bank fraud case involving millions of dollars of public

> school money. Judge continued to preside over and issue orders

> in the case, even though the fraud claims implicated a bank at which

> his wife was an employee and in which he had substantial financial

> interests. Several years later, he took on a related case, recusing

> himself only after he was requested to do so by one of the attorneys

> in the case, revealing only his wife's involvement and not his own

> financial interest. On March 14, 2002, after reviewing the facts and

> the arguments by and his defenders, noted legal ethics professor

> Monroe Freedman wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee that

> committed " repeated and egregious violations of judicial ethics " and

> that had been " disingenuous before this Committee in defending

> his unethical conduct. " Professor Freedman concluded that as a result,

> is " not fit to serve as a Federal Circuit Judge. "

>

> We believe that judges nominated to the federal appellate courts

> should be considered and confirmed based on their integrity, judicial

> philosophy and temperament, and commitment to safeguarding

> constitutional and civil rights. Judge 's record does not support

> his elevation to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, one step below

> the nation's highest court. Far from meeting the burden on any nominee

> to the appellate courts, his record reflects an insensitivity to and

> violation of ethical obligations, a troubling record in a number of

> cases involving individual rights, and a judicial philosophy that

> would severely restrict the power of Congress and other governmental

> authorities to protect such rights. Please contact us at

> adawatch@... and join us in calling on Senators to reject his

> nomination to the court of appeals.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Dart Ralph G. Neas, President Jim Ward, Executive

> Director

> People For the American Way ADA Watch Action

> Fund

>

>

>

>

> Jim Ward

> Executive Director

> ADA Watch Action Fund

> 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400

> Washington, DC 20036

> (202) 467-2359

>

>

> The ADA Watch Action Fund is a 501©(4)

> and a project of People For the American Way