Paper money is anti-blind: court

I heard this issue was raised because a Republican was manning holiday donation cannister and an elderly blind lady asked the Republican gentleman if she was holding a $5 bill for donation. He said "yes of course ma'am" and quickly pocketed her $20 bill. Luckily an onlooker saw this transpire. Happened in Youngstown, OH I believe.

Another activist judge inventing a new Constitutional right, one that the Founding Fathers and 200 years of jurisprudence somehow missed: the right to "meaningful access to US currency".

Somehow the same currency that has functioned well for 200 years, which was used and created by the people who wrote the Constitution, suddenly violates some "Constitutional right".

What a joke. But if this joke decision is upheld, the joke will be on us taxpayers, who will have to foot the bill for this currency change.

And does anyone think activist judges will stop there? Suppose some Spanish or Thai speaker sues on the basis that he/she can't read the currency and thus is similarly denied this newly invented "right"? This silly decision will generate years of litigation, and take away from the people their most fundamental right--the right to elect officials who decide such questions.

"I heard this issue was raised because a Republican was manning holiday donation cannister and an elderly blind lady asked the Republican gentleman if she was holding a $5 bill for donation. He said "yes of course ma'am" and quickly pocketed her $20 bill. Luckily an onlooker saw this transpire. Happened in Youngstown, OH I believe."

That's funny, I heard the same story, but it was in Springfield and it was Obama that pocketed the $20. He then traded the $20 with Rezko for a $50 just before voting on a bill that benefited his buddy Tony.

"I heard this issue was raised because a Republican was manning holiday donation cannister and an elderly blind lady asked the Republican gentleman if she was holding a $5 bill for donation. He said "yes of course ma'am" and quickly pocketed her $20 bill. Luckily an onlooker saw this transpire. Happened in Youngstown, OH I believe."

Not THAT is too funny. And they allow "Dave" to vote. Scary.

Many people who are blind create their own system for designating bills, such as folding one of the corners a certain way. Of course to do this they still have to have a trusting person tell them which bill is which.

Are you kidding me? Basd on this all books, menus, receipts, etc., are obsolete since they too discriminate.This country is turning into a caterer to the helpless

Posted by: Bruce | May 20, 2008 11:50 AM \

Bruce, this isn't about the Constitution, it's about the American's with Disabilities Act of 1990, which states, in part, "Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."

This law was passed by Congress and signed by the President. There is no "judicial activism" inventing new rights here, it is the courts enforcing the laws of the United States.

The United States is among the minority of nations that do not have different size currency.

SDS - You could not be MORE WRONG. These people are in fact asking the government to allow blind people to fend for themselves WITHOUT having to depend on the help of others; it's the antithesis of "helpless."

As for Bruce, do you similarly whine every time the government pays to update our currency to thwart counterfeiters? The only change being requested is different sizes for different denomination bills; I can't imagine that's much different in cost terms than retooling the entire mint to print new bills with different features. If you apply basic logic, you would see that this decision makes perfect sense. I guess you're offended by the fact that someone would be able to do what you are currently capable of doing yourself, thus taking away the reason you have to look down upon these people.

And since most ATMs only dispense $20s, I don't see where the banks have any complaint.

It's pretty sick and pathetic that people here would oppose the ability of others to do something we all take for granted every single day. There's something seriously wrong with some of you people.

If a decision goes against the aggressive establishment republicans and for the historically disadvantaged, the republicans blame it on an activist liberal appeals court. The big problem with their argument is that the federal appeals court in dc is conservative.

This is typical of the Hannity mouthpiece republicans of today...don't actually sit down and read the court opinion but instead just label the court liberal or activist, without knowing the facts of the case, the law, and the rationale for the decision.

And if the justices are "activist," so what? That may actually be a good thing. We would not have a strong judicial branch to check congress and the executive were it not for an activist justice named John Marshall. We would still have the separate but equal doctrine if it weren't for the "activist" judges in the 1960's. And the right wingers would not have been able to stop congress from banning guns at school playgrounds using their commerce powers, were it not for the activist Rehnquist court telling congress that their act was unconstitutional.

Somehow the republicans these days talk as if they want to return to the 1700's when there were still slaves, or at least when they could beat on the disadvantaged freely and make inconsistent laws that favor their rich or want to be rich selves. They talk as if they prefer the days of separate but equal, which was ended by the activist liberal justices that they despise so much.

The odd part about that is that Lincoln, a republican, would probably prefer the laws of today, and constitution that supports all americans. Lincoln today would be an activist liberal compared to these hard core right wing bloggers.

Bruce: Get a grip, learn some history, and get out more. First, your claim that the current US currency has been in place for 200 years and was "created by the people who wrote the Constitution" is laughable. Ten minutes of research that a fifth grader could do would reveal that the US has had a host of different currencies (including differing sizes) over its history. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, there was even currency issued by individual states. It's frightening that people resist change based on completely erroneous views of "the way it's always been." Second, many countries around the world have paper currency of varying sizes and colors. Doesn't seem like too much of a technical challenge for their treasuries. Finally, did you ask any blind people whether our currency has "functioned well" for 200 years?

dave - this lawsuit had nothing to do with youngstown or republicans. it was filed by the american council for the blind in 2002. get your facts straight. you seem to have a blind eye for the truth. and as for activist judges, the law suit stems from the ada and the rehabilitation act - both passed by congress. fix the money so that everyone can use it.

FYI Brian to so called activist judge was appointed by Bush.

You have to be kidding me!
So is Driving and television!

Few things for perspective:

Many, if not most, nations already have more common sense. Some (Eg Belgium) have braille dots, others have different sizes of Bills. (and/or large, different colors numbers which can be read by people with low vision.). Even in US, they did not insist on having all the coins of the same size and shape, and made them in such a way that they are "not anti-blind"

When the bills in US was getting redesigned (to prevent fraud etc), they sought comments from many organization. ACB provided the feedback on how they can make the bills more usable (without unreasonable costs etc) but this was arrogantly ignored. ACB finally bought a law suit, Federal court ruled in its favor but US Treasury, (which makes no sense to me, IMHO) appealed the decision. Appeals court is now upheld the previous decision. A reasonable thing to do.

Keep in mind, specially when all the bills are being redesigned, it is by no means unreasonable. After all new Canada's currency, Euro, or Indian Rupees all have tactile (or different sizes) features. US Treasury should not be dumb or arrogant. (It is not expensive to put a few tactile feature on the bill)

In Cincinnati, where I live, according to local news papers, even in the courthouse, blind vendors have been cheated (caught only because of surviliance cameras) when people gave one dollar and told the vendor it is $20.

Decisions like this one discriminate against the intelligent....

If a solution is to simply vary the size of our bills by denimination, then we should do it.

Anyone with half a brain (Bruce aside) knows a little bit about the history of U.S. currency.

The current "greenback" has been in circulation since the 1920's, not anywhere near the 200 years quoted earlier, nor was there a Federal currency @ the time of the signing of the Constitution ...

As for "activist" judges ... Conservatives should stop using coy descriptions to try inflame the masses against a judge who knows more about the situation than most any of us reading the actual story.

Republicans hate change, but get ready for it in November!

Sigh posted:

>>>Decisions like this one discriminate against the intelligent....

Being a very intelligent person myself, I can assure everyone that it (the decision) does NOT discriminate against intelligent.

BTW, Stephens, (One of the fellow who brought the original suit) has PhD and is a professor of law. Blind but very intelligent.

Any way what caught my eye from the court document posted in the link are two tidbits:

..Of the 171 authorities issuing currency identified by the
1995 NRC Report, only the United States prints bills that are
identical in size and color in all denominations.

And ..

The 1995 NRC Report recommended four possible design
modifications of U.S. currency: (1) variation in length and height of
each denomination; (2) large high-contrast numerals greater than half
height of a bill against a uniform background; (3) different
predominant colors for each denomination; and (4) inclusion of
features to assist with development of low-cost currency readers.
1995 NRC REPORT at 67-76.

... And the the secretary of Treasury , thought it was unreasonable ...
(and a few posters here are having a fit)

Canada places braille type on their money and increased the font size to indicate 5, 10, 20, etc., since 2001. Really, we need to give our heads a shake and realize this is a good thing for many people who wish to have access to a PUBLIC entity. People who say this is political correctness are off the mark.

I'm discriminated against everyday because I have to work and can't collect the government freebies like so many others.

I am a blind adult and I currently have to trust people with sight to identify my paper money for me. After someone has told me what denomination I'm holding, I have to fold that bill in a way that I must keep careful track of when handling and using my money. This system, of course, depends on the accuracy of the information I have received from the store clerk or other person when they told me the face value of the bills they gave to me in change.
Have I ever been cheated?
Yes, there are some situations that I am aware of where someone shortchanged me.
There have been situations where a bystander rebuked a clerk for giving me wrong change.
Most people are honest, but should a blind person have to depend on that?
Canada and the EU have currency designs that respect the dignity of their blind citizens. India's currency is designed in a way that allows a blind person to easily identify the various denominations of paper currency. Why should the U.s. Treasury choose to ignore the practical needs of blind citizens? Coins are easily identifyable by their size and either a smooth or ridged edge. Surely, the paper money that is of much greater value than coins should be more than flat pieces of paper that are all of uniform size and bland color.
The different bills could be of differing sizes to denote differing face values, or bold color would help many people who are sight impaired but who can see color. A tactile lump in a bill could serve both to identify face value and to make forgery more difficult. These are just a few ideas that come readily to mind.
There are prohibitively expensive devices that can scan and read out face values for currency. These devices cost literally thousands of dollars. How many people, especially blind people who are often in lower income brackets than their counterparts with sight, can be expected to purchase such gadgets?
The next time that you hand over a twenty dollar bill for some small purchase like a newspaper or cup of coffee, think about that change you get back. Don't you glance at it to be sure you have what you should?
Most people do not feel that they can afford to give a twenty, for example, and get incorrect change back.
Your neighbors who are blind need that same ability to glance by touch to verify that their hard-earned dollars are being used wisely.
This ruling in favor of common decency is actually an affirmation of the true spirit that built this nation.
It is an absolutely intelligent and decent ruling!

-A Blind American Citizen

As for the ATM's, it's no biggie. I regularly get currency at ATM's in Paris and Brussels. If I get 100 Euros, it's a 50, two 20's, and a 10. The 50 is bigger than the 20's, and the 20's are bigger than the 10. The 5-euro bill is still smaller.

If a French ATM can do it, an ATM in this country should be able to also.

nomw,
Please expand on your comment. Is someone forcing you to work? Someone holding a gun to your head? Why can't you collect the government freebies? What is stopping you from doing that?

Almost EVERYTHING is anti-blind.

It's truly refreshing to wake up every day remind myself that there are people like Bruce and "sigh" out there working hard to enlighten themselves and better the human race.

The U.S. Mint which prints the nation's currency is part of the Treasury Department.

The Mint doesn't print currency. The Bureau of Engraving does that. The Mint only issues coins.

And rock and roll is anti-deaf!

I do not understand why it was even necessary for blind people to sue for this.

Surely any reasonable and kind person would want paper money to be designed so that blind people would be able to use it without assistance. What is wrong with our country that blind people had to sue for such a simple accommodation?

In Australia, all the paper money is the same width, but different denominations have different lengths. How could that possibly add to the cost? And why did our government fight against such a simple change? We should all be ashamed of our government for its uncaring attitude.

"Surely any reasonable and kind person"

Well, that eliminates the Republicans!