If not, now is the time. While the U.S. House of Representatives wisely passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (now entitled, the “Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008”) with overwhelming bi-partisan support on June 25, 2008, the Senate appears to be (as far as I can tell) just sitting on their duffs and voting on relatively meaningless materials while letting the much needed ADA bill collect dust. The time is NOW to pass the bill and send a strong message to the Supreme Court that their vile rulings over the years, which have watered down the ADA, will no longer be tolerated. Those who have been subjected to the bigotry of big business needs to be stopped now and the only way to do that is through the passage of the ADA Amendments Act – immediately.

Of course, as I’ve monitored this bill, as well as discussions pertaining to it, I can’t help but note that one of the only “organizations” to denounce the passage of this bill is the far-right-wing never-had-a-brainwave “stink tank,” the “Heritage Foundation.” Yesterday, one of their snot-nosed pimply-faced bow-tie wearing (can you believe that?) punks, Andrew M. Grossman – a “senior policy analyst” (he only obtained a bachelor’s degree in 2002) had the audacity to testify before a congressional committee on the topic. While I won’t post a link to Grossman’s drivel (why bother?), he stupidly tried to argue that the reason the Senate should vote for this bill is would because it would cause “problems” created by the wrong interpretation of the ADA by the courts. Specifically, snot-nosed Grossman had the audacity to whine that the courts have,

“allowed [an] accumulation of a large body of coherent case law interpreting the ADA’s scope and coverage. The result is that those who have rights and obligation under the Act—including individuals with impairments and most employers—can rely on this body of interpretation in conducting their affairs.”

Is Grossman an idiot? Obviously, he is. Too bad he didn’t bother to read the official title of this bill when it was first intoduced: “To restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Perhaps snot-nosed Grossman might want to explain why the Bill was designed to “restore and protect” the ADA of 1990? Could it be because the courts have stupidly and WRONGLY redefined the ADA over the years and have created “case law” that has discriminated against those that the law was designed to protect in the first place?

An examination at Grossman’s next statement is even more hilarious (I’m beginning to think that Grossman might be a neo-Nazi):

“Any attempt to overturn Sutton and Williams would necessarily upset this case law and parties’ expectations under it, but the ADAAA’s language is particularly pernicious in that it supplies a new and untested vague standard for determining disability and mandates broad construction of this standard, while compounding the uncertainty of these commands by excising the guideposts that the courts have long relied upon in interpreting the ADA.”

“Upset” Sutton and Toyota (hmmm. . . why didn’t Grossman refer to that case properly)? Of course, using Mr. Bow Tie’s bizarre logic, it would be more appropriate to refer to both of those cases as “United Airlines and Toyota” – at least that would place an emphasis on big business’ bigotry against those with disabilities. I don’t know if Grossman has a wealthy sugar daddy who was able to find a way grant him an audience with a Senate committee and make stupid remarks, but Grossman’s lack of ability to come to logical conclusions is pathetic. Regardless, the fact is that the action of the courts, especially those of the Supreme Court, that have perniciously redefined the ADA to mean something it never was intended to be and, in doing so, has severely harmed all citizens, not just the disabled. Of course, Grossman was probably in diapers and being feed with golden spoons when the ADA was first enacted. Now, Grossman would have us believe that the courts have correctly interpreted the law and, therefore, Congress (which created the law in the first place) was clueless? Clearly, he’s also never heard of the term “checks and balances” – time for Grossman to go back to 8th grade!

Then there’s the problem that Grossman has with time – too bad he didn’t read the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Had he done so, he might have noticed that the two, very pernicious (hmm . . . there’s that word again!) Supreme Court cases he mentioned just happened to be noted (wonder why?) in the VERY FIRST SECTION OF THE BILL in which Congress finds that the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Airlines (1999) and the Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams (2002) which states that these cases,

“have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect.”

It’s too bad the Grossman didn’t elucidate upon the so-called “guideposts. . .that the courts have long relied upon in interpreting the ADA.” Perhaps Grossman might be referring to the “guideposts” that led to the Sutton and Toyota rulings? Of course, for a pampered little boy, like Grossman, who is barely out of diapers, time is certainly relative. Heck in the mere five years time between the pernicious (don’t you just love that word!) Toyota ruling and the formal introduction of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007, just think of all the bigotry those with disabilities have been subjected to.

Oh well, it’s too bad that fashion wrecks aren’t considered to be disabled – we can only hope that someday Mr. Bow Tie will be discriminated against for his fashion statements – maybe then, he’ll realize just how pernicious his drivel really is.