The Unseen Here and Now . . .

ARCHIVES

Stuart Revercomb

Stuart Revercomb is a marketing consultant and joyously married father of four children. He seems to remember someone once telling him he ought to be a writer. "The Unseen Here and Now" -- Thursdays.

E-MAIL

May 31, 2001

Don't Ask Me What The Judge Will Say...

If you want a prediction on a court case - don't ask me.

I thought John T. Scopes was innocent. It's a little known fact, but he wasn't even teaching school on the day that William Jennings Bryan had him pegged for extolling the benefits of evolution to the impressionable young men and women of Dayton Tennessee. His defenders, the intrepid Clarence Darrow and the ACLU also wanted him found guilty so that they could take the case to a higher court. Go figure the law.

On the flip side, O.J. Simpson seemed a trifle guilty to me. I figured that not even California could screw that one up. As it turned out I was nowhere close in that diagnosis - last I heard O.J. still hadn't "found himself".

And now Casey Martin and his golf cart.

My fellow columnist Reginald Shariff wrote a piece a couple of months ago on the lower court ruling that allowed Martin to compete. It was a well written reflection on the circumstances surrounding the case and his, (Reginalds), support of Martin's right to play. At the time I couldn't help responding :

I think you and the Oregon court have sacrificed common sense in the name
of wishing to help somebody in a difficult situation. Your motives are
pure, but the law does not support your reasoning. Unfortunately for Casey,
I think he's facing a let down in the Supreme Court.

Perhaps God has something even better in store for him than the PGA.

Hope so.

-Stuart

The headline today? "Supreme Court : Casey Martin Can Ride In Cart."

At least I'm consistent.

In the court's first ruling on the relationship between disability law and professional sports, Justice John Paul Stevens determined that, "the walking rule was neither an essential attribute of the game itself nor an indispensable feature of tournament golf."

Can you say subjective?

The PGA - that is the "Professional Golfers Association" - the body of men and women who do nothing but play, live, eat and drink the sport of Golf 24 hours a day 365 days a year, think it has something to do with the game. But Justice Stevens apparently understands both Golf and the effects that walking might have on the game better than the PGA. He went on to say that he was basing his position on a lower court Judge who had opined that, "Martin endured greater fatigue with a cart than his able bodied competitors did by walking."

Can you say subjective a whole lot louder? (And do your best to ignore the first basis of his reasoning that "walking just didn't affect the game".)

How? How do they know who suffers a greater level of fatigue? Did they measure it somehow on a relative basis to ALL the other golfers in the game? Is this the criteria on which we form a ruling of law?

Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia said it well : "the court's judgement distorts the text and structure of the law - and distorts common sense." The language and tone of Scalia's dissent was rare for even the most emotional of cases. He was joined by Judge Clarence Thomas who questioned why the logic wouldn't be applied to a little league baseball player with attention deficit disorder. Scalia added correctly : "The only thing that could prevent a court order giving the kid four strikes would be a judicial determination that, in baseball, three strikes are metaphysically necessary, which is quite absurd."

What about a basketball player with a knee disability? Should the NBA lower the rim? Should a Court of Law - Supreme or otherwise, decide whether it is appropriate to do so?

Why can't the PGA decide under what conditions their tournaments are played? Seems to me they should be able to require players to bake apple pies between the 7th and 8th tee if it suits their idea of how the game should be played. If they come up with enough bad ideas, players are free to form other associations or leagues.

What if the top 5 money makers told the PGA they wanted Casey to be able to use a cart. Think they would have listened? You bet they would. But the players didn't breathe a word - because, while they were all for Casey succeeding at Golf, they weren't for changing the nature of the game to accomplish it. They quietly left it up to the courts to decide the only legal question that remained :

Do we have a constitutional right to play golf on the PGA tour ?

People with serious disabilities, need the support and protection of the law as relates to discrimination and access to public places and events, and we need to open our hearts when given an opportunity to serve others who are in need of compassionate assistance. But the law should not be asked to allow for the creation of a fair set of rules for the majority as well as a set of individualized rules for talented but disabled athletes. In the words of a hot and angry Supreme Court Justice, "The law mandates no such ridiculous thing".

I suppose the upside of this ruling is that it is a rare instance of "The Law" having a little bit more heart than head, which is certainly not always the case. So hurray for Casey Martin as a person - even if he's not much of a golfer. It seems Casey has been stuck on the "Buy.Com Tour" - a minor league linked to the PGA. His best finish this year was a tie for 34th at the "Louisiana Open."

Maybe he didn't have the right cart.

Or maybe better yet, God really does have something better in store for him than the PGA.

Hope so.