Stowe Matthew J, Turnbull H Rutherford, Sublet Chad
Beach Center on Disability, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, 66045-7534, USA.
Ment Retard. 2006 Apr;44(2):83-99. doi: 10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[83:TSCOTA]2.0.CO;2.
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.
在对美国最高法院近期(1995 - 2004年)与残疾相关的关键裁决进行的讨论中,我们(a)评估最高法院是支持还是破坏了残疾政策的某些核心概念,以及(b)审视最高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昔日美国版本。我们解释最高法院对该版本的“幻想”,借助于被称为(a)被迫面对并回归多数主义程序以及(b)推进人际关系的构想。