Matthew J Stowe, H Rutherford Turnbull, Chad Sublet
{"title":"最高法院,“我们的城市”,残疾人政策:会议室和卧室,法庭和衣帽间。","authors":"Matthew J Stowe, H Rutherford Turnbull, Chad Sublet","doi":"10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[83:TSCOTA]2.0.CO;2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this discussion of recent key disability-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (1995- 2004), we (a) assess whether the Court has supported or undermined certain core concepts of disability policy and (b) examine how the Court balances the comparative rights of those with and those without disabilities. In cases involving employment discrimination, family law, and access to courts and other public decision-making entities, the Court adopts an idealized version of a previous America. We explain the Court's \"reverie\" for that version, resorting to the constructs known as (a) compelled confrontation and remission to majoritarian processes and (b) advancement of personal relationships.</p>","PeriodicalId":76152,"journal":{"name":"Mental retardation","volume":"44 2","pages":"83-99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[83:TSCOTA]2.0.CO;2","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Supreme Court, \\\"Our Town,\\\" and disability policy: boardrooms and bedrooms, courtrooms and cloakrooms.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew J Stowe, H Rutherford Turnbull, Chad Sublet\",\"doi\":\"10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[83:TSCOTA]2.0.CO;2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this discussion of recent key disability-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (1995- 2004), we (a) assess whether the Court has supported or undermined certain core concepts of disability policy and (b) examine how the Court balances the comparative rights of those with and those without disabilities. In cases involving employment discrimination, family law, and access to courts and other public decision-making entities, the Court adopts an idealized version of a previous America. We explain the Court's \\\"reverie\\\" for that version, resorting to the constructs known as (a) compelled confrontation and remission to majoritarian processes and (b) advancement of personal relationships.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental retardation\",\"volume\":\"44 2\",\"pages\":\"83-99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[83:TSCOTA]2.0.CO;2\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental retardation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[83:TSCOTA]2.0.CO;2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental retardation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[83:TSCOTA]2.0.CO;2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Supreme Court, "Our Town," and disability policy: boardrooms and bedrooms, courtrooms and cloakrooms.
In this discussion of recent key disability-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (1995- 2004), we (a) assess whether the Court has supported or undermined certain core concepts of disability policy and (b) examine how the Court balances the comparative rights of those with and those without disabilities. In cases involving employment discrimination, family law, and access to courts and other public decision-making entities, the Court adopts an idealized version of a previous America. We explain the Court's "reverie" for that version, resorting to the constructs known as (a) compelled confrontation and remission to majoritarian processes and (b) advancement of personal relationships.