•   
  •   
  •   

US Court rules majority of NYC traffic signals violate Americans with Disabilities Act

21:35  20 october  2020
21:35  20 october  2020 Source:   thehill.com

What happens to the Supreme Court (and the Constitution) if Trump wins

  What happens to the Supreme Court (and the Constitution) if Trump wins The Supreme Court has rejected some of the GOP’s sloppiest and most presumptuous arguments. It won’t anymore if Republicans grow their majority.McConnell’s “nine out of 10” estimate is almost certainly an exaggeration, but there’s no question that Republicans view filling the judiciary with Federalist Society stalwarts as one of their highest priorities, if not the highest priority.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that New York City has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not installing accessible pedestrian signals for the blind.

a group of people riding skis on a snowy road: Court rules majority of NYC traffic signals violate Americans with Disabilities Act © UPI Photo Court rules majority of NYC traffic signals violate Americans with Disabilities Act

The lawsuit, brought by the the American Council of the Blind in 2018, sued on behalf of plaintiffs Michael Golfo and Christina Curry, claiming that of the city's 13,000 pedestrian traffic signals, just over 2 percent convey information in a way that is accessible to blind pedestrians.

Approximately 205,000 blind or otherwise visually-impaired people live in the city.

Originalism, Amy Coney Barrett’s approach to the Constitution, explained

  Originalism, Amy Coney Barrett’s approach to the Constitution, explained Originalism sells itself as a way of constraining judges. But it’s more often a way of unleashing them.Originalism, in Barrett’s words, is the belief that “constitutional text means what it did at the time it was ratified and that this original public meaning is authoritative.” Judges, originalists maintain, should be bound by the words of the Constitution, and the meaning of those words should be determined solely based on how they were understood when they were added to the Constitution.

"When pedestrian signals do not give blind and deaf-blind pedestrians the same information that sighted pedestrians receive, their safety and independence is at risk," the lawsuit stated.

In a Tuesday ruling, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled the current "near-total absence" of accessible crossing information violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the federal disability law that preceded the ADA.

Engelmayer's ruling notes that blind pedestrians in New York will typically stop at the curb and assume they are at a point where they can cross the street. Without any accessible indicator of a crossing, however, blind pedestrians cross somewhere other than the crosswalk 30 percent of the time. This leaves them to rely on other auditory cues, which is prohibitively difficult with New York's level of ambient noise.

Senators to grill Amy Coney Barrett on third day of Supreme Court confirmation hearings

  Senators to grill Amy Coney Barrett on third day of Supreme Court confirmation hearings Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings will continue on Wednesday with senators asking more questions on healthcare, abortion and gunsMembers of the Senate Judiciary Committee will get another chance to question Barrett on her views on the law and a number of hot-button issues that could come before the court.

"[T]he Court holds that the absence of non-visual crossing information at more than 95% of the City's signalized intersections denies plaintiffs meaningful access to the City's signalized intersections and the pedestrian grid, in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act," Engelmayer wrote.

"The Court further holds that some, but not all, of the City's projects with respect to traffic signals gave rise to a duty under these statutes to add APS [Accessible Pedestrian Signals]-a duty that the City has largely breached."

Although the city has the option to argue that installing further APS would be overly burdensome, "the City has not met-or even attempted to meet-its burden of showing that the installation of additional APS would constitute an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of any City service, program, or activity," he added.

President Trump has kept his promise to remake the federal bench, including the Supreme Court .
Trump has become the first president since Richard Nixon to name three judges to the Supreme Court in a first term.With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death  of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Trump has become the first president since Richard Nixon to name three judges to the nation's highest court during a first term.

usr: 3
This is interesting!