Nathan Newman wrote:
> O'Connor for the Court argued that imposing liability for paying the health
> care benefits of former mining employees on mine companies "interferes with
> the claimant's reasonable investment-backed expectations" and "attaches new
> legal consequences to [an employment relationship] completed before its
> enactment." Like the Ex Post Facto Clause in penal legislation, O'Connor
> argued that "the Takings Clause provides a similar safeguard against
> retrospective legislation concerning property rights."
>
> This is an intellectually cogent if politically deadly position for
> conservatives to defend. And they are increasingly doing so through their
> control of the Supreme Court.
This passage from the majority decision in Garrett is especially jarring:
Even were it possible to squeeze out of these examples a pattern of unconstitutional discrimination by the States, the rights and remedies created by the ADA against the States would raise the same sort of concerns as to congruence and proportionality as were found in City of Boerne, supra. For example, whereas it would be entirely rational (and therefore constitutional) for a state employer to conserve scarce financial resources by hiring employees who are able to use existing facilities, the ADA requires employers to "mak[e] existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities."
If this logic prevails, Americans whose disabilities do not match existing inaccessible facilities are out of consideration as far as "equality of opportunity" goes -
Marta