The Supreme Court, "Our Town," and disability policy: boardrooms and bedrooms, courtrooms and cloakrooms.

Matthew J Stowe, H Rutherford Turnbull, Chad Sublet
{"title":"The Supreme Court, \"Our Town,\" and disability policy: boardrooms and bedrooms, courtrooms and cloakrooms.","authors":"Matthew J Stowe,&nbsp;H Rutherford Turnbull,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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。
在对美国最高法院(1995- 2004)最近与残疾相关的关键判决的讨论中,我们(a)评估法院是否支持或破坏了残疾政策的某些核心概念,(b)研究法院如何平衡残疾人和非残疾人的相对权利。在涉及就业歧视、家庭法以及诉诸法院和其他公共决策实体的案件中,最高法院采用了一个理想化的过去的美国。我们解释了法院对这一版本的“幻想”,诉诸于(a)强制对抗和对多数主义进程的缓解,以及(b)个人关系的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ben. Teachers' Guides to Inclusive Practices: Modifying Schoolwork Incident management, organizational culture, and honest communications. Community literacy and friendship model for people with intellectual disabilities. Twenty-year retrospective on proposals to eliminate the "institutional bias" in Medicaid for persons with ID/DD.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1