>
>"ACTION ALERT!!  Senate Consideration of Judicial Nominees"
>
>Below is an alert from the American Association of
>University Women about the Senate Judiciary Committee's
>decision to consider the nomination of Dennis Shedd and
>Michael McConnell TOMORROW.  AAPD, the Bazelon Center for
>Mental Health Law and other disability rights groups are
>opposing the Shedd nomination because of his problematic
>record on disability rights.  Excerpts from a previous JFA
>posting about Shedd follow the alert.
>
>Jonathan Young, PhD
>JFA Editor, AAPD
>
>=====================================
>
>ALERT - Senate Judiciary Committee to Consider Both Shedd
>and McConnell on
>Thursday, Nov. 14
>
>By now you have undoubtedly heard that on Thursday
>tomorrow) the Judiciary Committee, under Sen. Leahy's watch
>as chair, will consider in an executive session both the
>nomination of Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of
>Appeals and Michael McConnell to the Tenth Circuit Court of
>Appeals. It has been reported that the rationale is to do
>it for good will.
>
>Alert your grassroots and ask them to contact all members
>of the Senate Judiciary Committee to urge them to oppose
>both of these nominations.
>
>Democrats
>
>Patrick J. Leahy, Chair (VT) - 202/224-4242;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (DE) - 202/224-5042;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Maria Cantwell (WA) - 202/224-3441;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Richard Durbin (IL) - 202/224-2152; [log in to unmask]
>
>John Edwards (NC) - 202/224-3154;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Russell Feingold (WI) - 202/224-5323; feingold.senate.gov
>(online form)
>
>Dianne Feinstein (CA) - 202/224-3841;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Edward M. Kennedy (MA) - 202/224-4543;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Herb Kohl (WI) - 202/224-5653; [log in to unmask]
>
>Charles Schumer (NY) - 202/224-6542;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Republicans
>Orrin G. Hatch, Ranking Member (UT) - 202/224-5251;
>www.senate.gov/~hatch (online form)
>
>Sam Brownback (KS) - 202/224-6521;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Mike DeWine (OH) - 202/224-2315;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Charles E. Grassley (IA) - 202/224-3744;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Jon Kyl (AZ) - 202/224-4521; www.senate.gov/~kyl (online
>form)
>
>Mitch McConnell (KY) - 202/224-2541;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Jeff Sessions (AL) - 202/224-4124;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Arlen Specter (PA) - 202/224-4254;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Strom Thurmond (SC) - 202/224-5972;
>[log in to unmask]
>
>=======================
>
>>From "Another Bush Judicial Nominee Threatens Disability
>Rights," August 21, 2002:
>
>* * *
>
>"Dennis Shedd's Record on Disability Issues"
>
>Judge Dennis Shedd, a Bush nominee to the Fourth Circuit
>Court of Appeals, has a striking record of hostility toward
>civil rights during his years on the federal bench,
>including a consistent disregard for the rights of people
>with disabilities.  He has ruled against disability rights
>plaintiffs in almost every instance, departing from settled
>law and adopting tortured interpretations of disability
>rights laws.  His opinions routinely ignore evidence,
>stating in conclusory fashion that the plaintiff has failed
>to produce evidence to support her claims.  For example:
>
>Judge Shedd effectively read the right of employees to
>"reassignment" out of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
>Reassignment to a vacant position is a crucial protection
>for individuals with disabilities who can no longer perform
>their current jobs.  Congress explicitly included
>reassignment as one type of accommodation required by the
>ADA.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
>and the courts have consistently interpreted the ADA to
>require an employer to reassign a person with a disability
>to a vacant position for which he is qualified, if such a
>position exists, when the person is no longer able to do
>his current job.  Judge Shedd drastically limited the right
>to reassignment in a way that not only made no sense but
>was flatly contradicted by the EEOC, the agency on whose
>interpretations Judge Shedd purported to rely.  Judge
>Shedd's decision stands out as both unique and bizarre.
>
>Judge Shedd ignored the plain meaning of the ADA when he
>approved a state health insurance pool's refusal of
>coverage for a man who was HIV positive.  The pool was
>designed to provide insurance for individuals whose medical
>conditions disqualified them from private insurance.  No
>other medical condition was excluded, and the state had
>done no actuarial analysis to justify the exclusion of
>individuals with HIV/AIDS. While many courts have held that
>the ADA does not prevent insurance plans from providing
>lesser benefits for treatment of particular types of
>disabilities, Shedd's ruling that the ADA permits the
>complete exclusion from any benefits based on a person's
>disability goes way beyond those decisions.  The plaintiff
>who brought this case sought to have it decided on an
>expedited basis, but died eight months later, before any
>decision was rendered.
>
>Judge Shedd rejected a discrimination claim of a man who
>was fired because of his status as an alcoholic even though
>his alcoholism had no effect on his work performance and he
>was not intoxicated at work.  The employer discovered that
>the man was drinking during a two-week period of leave
>approved by the employer, and fired him on that basis
>alone.  The man was fired before he returned to work.  A
>federal magistrate found no evidence that the man's
>alcoholism interfered with his ability to do his job and
>recommended that his claim be permitted to proceed.
>Nonetheless, Judge Shedd rejected the magistrate's
>recommendation and threw out the man's discrimination
>claim.  He concluded, without citing any evidence, that the
>man's alcoholism rendered him unable to do his job, and
>therefore was not protected by the Rehabilitation Act.
>
>Judge Shedd exhibited troubling attitudes toward
>individuals with disabilities in his courtroom.  In a 1995
>criminal trial, Shedd upheld the prosecutor's request to
>require the defendant's wife to hide that she was blind.
>The prosecutor was concerned that the wife's blindness
>would engender sympathy for the defendant.  The prosecutor
>asked that the wife keep her cane out of sight.  Shedd
>inquired of the defense attorney, "Does the cane have to be
>visible during the court trial?"  The defense attorney
>replied that the woman depended on it.  Shedd stated: "It
>is going to be down.  I will stop the trial if she uses it
>for anything other than access in and out."
>
>* * *
>
># # #
>
>=====================
>
>JUSTICE FOR ALL -- A Service of the
>American Association of People with Disabilities
>www.aapd-dc.org     www.jfanow.org
>
>There's strength in numbers!  Be a part of a national
>coalition of people with disabilities and join AAPD today.
>www.aapd-dc.org
>
>
>
>
>=====================================================================
>                 Justice-For-All FREE Subscriptions
>   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to [log in to unmask]
>         with one or the other in the body of your message:
>                         subscribe justice
>                        unsubscribe justice
>
>