SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Scrutiny for Supreme Court Pick Fails to Focus on Rights of Disabled
Since Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court, media have coalesced around a few themes: One is about whether any Trump appointment should be blocked as payback to Republicans, as expressed in a New York Times headline (2/13/17): "Democrats' Quandary on Gorsuch: Appease the Base or Honor the Process." Spoiler: The paper thinks the real strain is on "those in the middle."
Feb 18, 2017
Since Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court, media have coalesced around a few themes: One is about whether any Trump appointment should be blocked as payback to Republicans, as expressed in a New York Times headline (2/13/17): "Democrats' Quandary on Gorsuch: Appease the Base or Honor the Process." Spoiler: The paper thinks the real strain is on "those in the middle."
Another theme is Gorsuch's "eloquence" and his being "hard to pigeonhole" as conservative: One story said he "didn't skip a beat" when a friend came out to him as gay.
There are stories about concerns around Gorsuch's record on the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit: They focus on his justifiably concerning ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, where the chain store won the right to deny employees contraception coverage and in which he described birth control, falsely, as "destroying a fertilized human egg."
But the lens corporate media use for Supreme Court nominees has some blind spots. In this case, you could read all the elite press have to offer on Gorsuch and never hear about human rights for people with disabilities. You'd need to find ACLU attorney Claudia Center's piece on her group's website (2/3/17) to learn about Hwang vs. Kansas State University--a case brought by assistant professor Grace Hwang, who was returning to work after a leave of absence for cancer treatment when the campus broke out in a flu epidemic, leading her to request to work from home for a short period as her immune system was weakened.
Judge Gorsuch sided with the school that this request was unreasonable and he said that disability rights rules aren't meant to "turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work." That call, which Center notes represented errors of both law and fact, went against every other circuit decision on the issue, as well as guidance from the EEOC and the Supreme Court. But a search of major media on "Gorsuch" and "Hwang" turns up zero stories.
Despite disabled people constituting, according to the Census Bureau, some 19 percent of the US population--that's nearly 1 in 5 people--how the highest court in the land may affect their ability to work and live just isn't that interesting to corporate media. With a president that openly mocks disabled people, that kind of disinterest is even more dangerous.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
Since Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court, media have coalesced around a few themes: One is about whether any Trump appointment should be blocked as payback to Republicans, as expressed in a New York Times headline (2/13/17): "Democrats' Quandary on Gorsuch: Appease the Base or Honor the Process." Spoiler: The paper thinks the real strain is on "those in the middle."
Another theme is Gorsuch's "eloquence" and his being "hard to pigeonhole" as conservative: One story said he "didn't skip a beat" when a friend came out to him as gay.
There are stories about concerns around Gorsuch's record on the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit: They focus on his justifiably concerning ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, where the chain store won the right to deny employees contraception coverage and in which he described birth control, falsely, as "destroying a fertilized human egg."
But the lens corporate media use for Supreme Court nominees has some blind spots. In this case, you could read all the elite press have to offer on Gorsuch and never hear about human rights for people with disabilities. You'd need to find ACLU attorney Claudia Center's piece on her group's website (2/3/17) to learn about Hwang vs. Kansas State University--a case brought by assistant professor Grace Hwang, who was returning to work after a leave of absence for cancer treatment when the campus broke out in a flu epidemic, leading her to request to work from home for a short period as her immune system was weakened.
Judge Gorsuch sided with the school that this request was unreasonable and he said that disability rights rules aren't meant to "turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work." That call, which Center notes represented errors of both law and fact, went against every other circuit decision on the issue, as well as guidance from the EEOC and the Supreme Court. But a search of major media on "Gorsuch" and "Hwang" turns up zero stories.
Despite disabled people constituting, according to the Census Bureau, some 19 percent of the US population--that's nearly 1 in 5 people--how the highest court in the land may affect their ability to work and live just isn't that interesting to corporate media. With a president that openly mocks disabled people, that kind of disinterest is even more dangerous.
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
Since Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court, media have coalesced around a few themes: One is about whether any Trump appointment should be blocked as payback to Republicans, as expressed in a New York Times headline (2/13/17): "Democrats' Quandary on Gorsuch: Appease the Base or Honor the Process." Spoiler: The paper thinks the real strain is on "those in the middle."
Another theme is Gorsuch's "eloquence" and his being "hard to pigeonhole" as conservative: One story said he "didn't skip a beat" when a friend came out to him as gay.
There are stories about concerns around Gorsuch's record on the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit: They focus on his justifiably concerning ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, where the chain store won the right to deny employees contraception coverage and in which he described birth control, falsely, as "destroying a fertilized human egg."
But the lens corporate media use for Supreme Court nominees has some blind spots. In this case, you could read all the elite press have to offer on Gorsuch and never hear about human rights for people with disabilities. You'd need to find ACLU attorney Claudia Center's piece on her group's website (2/3/17) to learn about Hwang vs. Kansas State University--a case brought by assistant professor Grace Hwang, who was returning to work after a leave of absence for cancer treatment when the campus broke out in a flu epidemic, leading her to request to work from home for a short period as her immune system was weakened.
Judge Gorsuch sided with the school that this request was unreasonable and he said that disability rights rules aren't meant to "turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work." That call, which Center notes represented errors of both law and fact, went against every other circuit decision on the issue, as well as guidance from the EEOC and the Supreme Court. But a search of major media on "Gorsuch" and "Hwang" turns up zero stories.
Despite disabled people constituting, according to the Census Bureau, some 19 percent of the US population--that's nearly 1 in 5 people--how the highest court in the land may affect their ability to work and live just isn't that interesting to corporate media. With a president that openly mocks disabled people, that kind of disinterest is even more dangerous.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.