Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Feb '11 03:26 / 3 edits
    The great Justice Antonin Scalia, in PGA Tour v. Martin, 204 F.3d 994 (2001).

    The majority ruled that the PGA must allow Casey Martin to ride in his golf cart even though PGA rules forbid it because Martin had trouble walking, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Scalia's dissent is an classic read. Whether you know anything about law or not, you will no doubt enjoy it.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-24.ZD.html

    My favorite part:

    If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf–and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point–then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.

    Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question. To say that something is “essential” is ordinarily to say that it is necessary to the achievement of a certain object. But since it is the very nature of a game to have no object except amusement (that is what distinguishes games from productive activity), it is quite impossible to say that any of a game’s arbitrary rules is “essential.” Eighteen-hole golf courses, 10-foot-high basketball hoops, 90-foot baselines, 100-yard football fields–all are arbitrary and none is essential. The only support for any of them is tradition and (in more modern times) insistence by what has come to be regarded as the ruling body of the sport–both of which factors support the PGA TOUR’s position in the present case. (Many, indeed, consider walking to be the central feature of the game of golf–hence Mark Twain’s classic criticism of the sport: “a good walk spoiled.&rdquo I suppose there is some point at which the rules of a well-known game are changed to such a degree that no reasonable person would call it the same game. If the PGA TOUR competitors were required to dribble a large, inflated ball and put it through a round hoop, the game could no longer reasonably be called golf. But this criterion–destroying recognizability as the same generic game–is surely not the test of “essentialness” or “fundamentalness” that the Court applies, since it apparently thinks that merely changing the diameter of the cup might “fundamentally alter” the game of golf, ante, at 20.
  2. 08 Feb '11 03:32
    Originally posted by sh76
    The great Justice Antonin Scalia, in PGA Tour v. Martin, 204 F.3d 994 (2001).

    The majority ruled that the PGA must allow Casey Martin to ride in his golf cart even though PGA rules forbid it because Martin had trouble walking, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Scalia's dissent is an classic read. Whether you know anything about law or not, you wi ...[text shortened]... ging the diameter of the cup might “fundamentally alter” the game of golf, ante, at 20.[/quote]
    After reading The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin, I hate Scalia with the heat of a thousand suns. And Thomas isn't far behind. The only Supreme worth a damn was Diana Ross.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Feb '11 19:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    The great Justice Antonin Scalia, in PGA Tour v. Martin, 204 F.3d 994 (2001).

    The majority ruled that the PGA must allow Casey Martin to ride in his golf cart even though PGA rules forbid it because Martin had trouble walking, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Scalia's dissent is an classic read. Whether you know anything about law or not, you wi ...[text shortened]... ging the diameter of the cup might “fundamentally alter” the game of golf, ante, at 20.[/quote]
    A) That not a "Supreme court" line;

    B) Scalia playing to the crowd with his idea of laugh lines in a case where a man was to be deprived of his living because of the enforcement of an arbitrary rule is typically arrogant. I bet Antonin would have written a hilarious, scathing dissent in Brown v. Board of Ed.

    C) May all his wonderful lines be in dissents.
  4. 09 Feb '11 15:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    A) That not a "Supreme court" line;

    B) Scalia playing to the crowd with his idea of laugh lines in a case where a man was to be deprived of his living because of the enforcement of an arbitrary rule is typically arrogant. I bet Antonin would have written a hilarious, scathing dissent in Brown v. Board of Ed.

    C) May all his wonderful lines be in dissents.
    Yes, and the NBA arbitrarily interferes with my livelihood by letting taller men block shots of average size men such as myself.

    MLB interferes with my livelihood by allowing pitchers to pitch so fast I cannot hit the ball.

    And of course the NFL interferes (quite arbitrarily I might add) with my livelihood by allowing bigger, faster, and stronger men to push me around.

    And the NHL arbitrarily interferes with my livelihood by requiring the game be played on ice (I cannot skate very well).

    How hateful of these 4 organizations to discriminate. Obviously they have something personal against me.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    09 Feb '11 16:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Yes, and the NBA arbitrarily interferes with my livelihood by letting taller men block shots of average size men such as myself.

    MLB interferes with my livelihood by allowing pitchers to pitch so fast I cannot hit the ball.

    And of course the NFL interferes (quite arbitrarily I might add) with my livelihood by allowing bigger, faster, and stronger men ...[text shortened]... ul of these 4 organizations to discriminate. Obviously they have something personal against me.
    As brain dead an argument as Scalia made. Martin could do everything necessary to play the game of golf which involves hitting a ball toward a hole. The PGA wished to impose a condition that had nothing whatsoever to do with the game. It would be akin to the Professional Poker Tour requiring players to run to their chairs between every deal.
  6. 10 Feb '11 05:41
    The most ridiculous aspect of Scalia's juvenile argument was that golf had anything to do with this case. The case was about preventing a man from entering the marketplace because of prejudice over his disability. The majority rightly upheld free-market principles. Scalia is just another classic example of someone who can memorize facts without ever achieving understanding. These kinds of blockheads are legion. I look forward to cave-living considerably thinning their herd.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Feb '11 13:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    The most ridiculous aspect of Scalia's juvenile argument was that golf had anything to do with this case. The case was about preventing a man from entering the marketplace because of prejudice over his disability. The majority rightly upheld free-market principles. Scalia is just another classic example of someone who can memorize facts without ever ac ...[text shortened]... kinds of blockheads are legion. I look forward to cave-living considerably thinning their herd.
    Casey Martin wasn't prevented from entering the marketplace. He was merely asked to play by the same rules as everyone else.

    And of course the case was about golf. Read the majority opinion. It's all about how walking is not a central component of golf.

    Your calling Antonin Scalia a "blockhead" is beneath comment.
  8. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    10 Feb '11 14:02
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    The most ridiculous aspect of Scalia's juvenile argument was that golf had anything to do with this case. The case was about preventing a man from entering the marketplace because of prejudice over his disability. The majority rightly upheld free-market principles. Scalia is just another classic example of someone who can memorize facts without ever ac ...[text shortened]... kinds of blockheads are legion. I look forward to cave-living considerably thinning their herd.
    Aack!

    Scalia is just another classic example of someone who can memorize facts without ever achieving understanding.

    If, by "Scalia," you meant yourself, you'd be spot on. You had equal access to reading the OP as anyone else, and yet you came to this conclusion:
    The most ridiculous aspect of Scalia's juvenile argument was that golf had anything to do with this case.

    Scalia is clearly bemoaning the fact that the Supreme Court is, at this point in the pursuit of a more perfect union, being put upon to intone on the arbitrary rules of games. Who the hell cares what game it is, or how much is at stake? What's next: lawsuits involving fantasy football trades?
  9. 10 Feb '11 14:41
    Scalia: "Torture is not punishment".

    He completely disregarded the constitution with that comment. He should be impeached for it but congress is too corrupt to care. We need a revolution for our constitution to be respected.
    I say we torture Scalia since it is not punishment.
  10. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    10 Feb '11 19:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder


    C) May all his wonderful lines be in dissents.
    since it is the very nature of a game to have no object except amusement (that is what distinguishes games from productive activity), it is quite impossible to say that any of a game’s arbitrary rules is “essential.”

    A game has objects other than amusement. In particular, many "games" are big business and provide an income to players and others. The right to employment on fair terms includes a right to reasonable adjustments for people with a disability. Games also offer considerable benefits, such as a sense of achievement and social participation, to which people with disabilities can reasonably aspire. There is room for a debate about what is reasonable, but this is not a foolish or trivial matter.

    I am not sure that any rule can avoid the argument that it is arbitrary, in that it could be different. This is certainly true of many laws and applies to the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court. If it were not so, and indeed the outcome of the Supreme Court's work was a Platonic ideal, then it would not matter who sat on the court - so why is there such heated argument when a seat becomes vacant? Preisely because any decision could very well turn out differently.

    That said - it's a fun OP.
  11. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    10 Feb '11 20:47
    Originally posted by finnegan
    [b] since it is the very nature of a game to have no object except amusement (that is what distinguishes games from productive activity), it is quite impossible to say that any of a game’s arbitrary rules is “essential.”

    A game has objects other than amusement. In particular, many "games" are big business and provide an income to players and others. ...[text shortened]... because any decision could very well turn out differently.

    That said - it's a fun OP. [/b]
    O.E. gamen "game, joy, fun, amusement,"
    common Germanic (cf. O.Fris. game "joy, glee," O.N. gaman, O.S., O.H.G. gaman "sport, merriment,"
    Dan. gamen, Swed. gamman "merriment",
    regarded as identical with Goth. gaman "participation, communion," from P.Gmc. *ga- collective prefix + *mann "person," giving a sense of "people together."
    Meaning "contest played according to rules" is first attested c.1300.

    While it certainly could be argued there are other objects, the other aims are secondary. No one on the PGA ever received a penny until they could compete.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Feb '11 02:34 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    Casey Martin wasn't prevented from entering the marketplace. He was merely asked to play by the same rules as everyone else.

    And of course the case was about golf. Read the majority opinion. It's all about how walking is not a central component of golf.

    Your calling Antonin Scalia a "blockhead" is beneath comment.
    Asking a disabled person "to play by the same rules as everyone else" when a reasonable modification would not fundamentally alter the game is a violation of the ADA as Congress wrote it. To quote Justice Stevens (who's majority opinion might lack the laugh lines but is certainly more in tune with Congressional intent):

    As we have noted, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) sets forth Title III’s general rule prohibiting public accommodations from discriminating against individuals because of their disabilities. The question whether petitioner has violated that rule depends on a proper construction of the term “discrimination,” which is defined by Title III to include:

    “a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.” §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis added).

    Petitioner does not contest that a golf cart is a reasonable modification that is necessary if Martin is to play in its tournaments. Martin’s claim thus differs from one that might be asserted by players with less serious afflictions that make walking the course uncomfortable or difficult, but not beyond their capacity. In such cases, an accommodation might be reasonable but not necessary. In this case, however, the narrow dispute is whether allowing Martin to use a golf cart, despite the walking requirement that applies to the PGA TOUR, the NIKE TOUR, and the third stage of the Q-School, is a modification that would “fundamentally alter the nature” of those events.


    The law put the burden on the PGA of showing that allowing Martin to use a golf cart would "fundamentally alter" the game of golf. Obviously they could not do that esp. as several levels of competition expressly allow carts and the PGA rule itself was of recent (1997) vintage.

    If Scalia thinks that its beneath him to rule on such questions (they're "incredibly silly" according to his opinion), perhaps he should resign and get a job at Fox.
  13. 11 Feb '11 11:44 / 1 edit
    I guess it depends on whether you regard professional sports as a business or as a game. The US government obviously has a valid reason to regulate the former, but not the latter. Was Martin an "employee" of the PGA who was in the business of entertainment through providing golf services? Or was he just playing a game, which as Scalia rightfully points out, has arbitrary rules anyway? A case can be made for either position, although the former is perhaps more reasonable considering the large amount of money that flows through golf. Scalia apparently sees golf more as a game rather than a business.
  14. 11 Feb '11 14:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As brain dead an argument as Scalia made. Martin could do everything necessary to play the game of golf which involves hitting a ball toward a hole. The PGA wished to impose a condition that had nothing whatsoever to do with the game. It would be akin to the Professional Poker Tour requiring players to run to their chairs between every deal.
    As one who plays little golf, I'd rather be humble in what extent I would be willing to tell the PGA what the valid limits of what is and isn't golf. That is what Scalia did. I don't think that's brain dead.

    The other side of the debate does nothing more than to project their on bigotry onto the PGA. i.e. They made a choice to not accommodate a handicap person in a professional sport. BIGOTS!!! Logically, that is an incredible leap. More and more on the left it has become the norm to see all who disagree as bigots.

    Perhaps the PGA is not motivated by bigotry.

    What if someone diagnosed with OCD demanded to enter an OTB chess tournament and not be required to submit to the "touch move" rule?

    Already, numerous people diagnosed with learning disabilities are allowed to take the SAT untimed. What if the supreme court ordered the USCF to allow a few folks to play without time constraint because they'd been diagnosed with a learning disability? Who is the USCF to insist that time constraints are an essential part of chess? Would you think the Supreme Court was arrogant to tell us what is and isn't chess?

    Glad to live in the good ole USA. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and government controlled golf rules.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Feb '11 15:39
    Originally posted by techsouth
    As one who plays little golf, I'd rather be humble in what extent I would be willing to tell the PGA what the valid limits of what is and isn't golf. That is what Scalia did. I don't think that's brain dead.

    The other side of the debate does nothing more than to project their on bigotry onto the PGA. i.e. They made a choice to not accommodate a handi ...[text shortened]... . Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and government controlled golf rules.
    Bigotry has nothing to do with it; I suggest you read the section of the ADA Justice Stevens cited to. The PGA isn't above the law.