Neil Gorsuch’s belief in reading the law as narrowly as needed to screw ordinary people reared its head again during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing Wednesday, but not because of anything Gorsuch himself said on Wednesday. No, the issue was something the entire United States Supreme Court said—that Gorsuch was wrong in a 2008 opinion dealing with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Ian Millhiser writes:

Under Gorsuch’s opinion in Luke P., a school district complies with the law so long as they provide educational benefits that “must merely be ‘more than de minimis.’”

“De minimis” is a Latin phrase meaning “so minor as to merit disregard.” So Gorsuch essentially concluded that school districts comply with their obligation to disabled students so long as they provide those students with a little more than nothing.

All eight justices rejected Gorsuch’s approach. IDEA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “is markedly more demanding than the ‘merely more than de minimis’ test applied by the Tenth Circuit.” Indeed, Roberts added, Gorsuch’s approach would effectively strip many disabled students of their right to an education.

Sure, maybe if Antonin Scalia had been alive, the Supreme Court’s decision would have been 8-1, but Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas just said Gorsuch was wrong—and wrong because he would deny disabled kids an education.

SUPREMECOURTNOMINEEFBIINVEST.jpg

Originally Posted by Guest

Neil Gorsuch’s belief in reading the law as narrowly as needed to screw ordinary people reared its head again during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing Wednesday, but not because of anything Gorsuch himself said on Wednesday. No, the issue was something the entire United States Supreme Court said—that Gorsuch was wrong in a 2008 opinion dealing with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Ian Millhiser writes:

Under Gorsuch’s opinion in Luke P., a school district complies with the law so long as they provide educational benefits that “must merely be ‘more than de minimis.’”

“De minimis” is a Latin phrase meaning “so minor as to merit disregard.” So Gorsuch essentially concluded that school districts comply with their obligation to disabled students so long as they provide those students with a little more than nothing.

All eight justices rejected Gorsuch’s approach. IDEA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “is markedly more demanding than the ‘merely more than de minimis’ test applied by the Tenth Circuit.” Indeed, Roberts added, Gorsuch’s approach would effectively strip many disabled students of their right to an education.

Sure, maybe if Antonin Scalia had been alive, the Supreme Court’s decision would have been 8-1, but Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas just said Gorsuch was wrong—and wrong because he would deny disabled kids an education.

Attachment 66999

And the ruling goes further to say;



The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act requires schools to offer education plans “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (PDF) Wednesday.
As NPR reported, the unanimous ruling was a win for Endrew F., a Colorado boy with autism. His parents removed him from public school in the fifth grade after the school offered them an individualized education plan, or IEP, that they believed would not help Endrew make substantial progress. They then sued the school district under the IDEA for reimbursement of the tuition costs at the private school where he had been enrolled.
The family’s claim was denied, and that decision was affirmed by the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under a prior Supreme Court case on IDEA, Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, the law’s requirement for a “free, appropriate public education” is satisfied by an IEP “reasonably calculated to enable the child to received educational benefits.” The 10th Circuit decided that this means an IEP is sufficient if it creates “an educational benefit [that is]… more than de minimis.”
The Supreme Court disagreed 8-0. It said every child should have a chance to be challenged.
“This standard is markedly more demanding than the ‘merely more than de minimis’ test applied by the 10th Circuit,” the court held in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. “It cannot be the case that the act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot..”
However, the high court went on, it disagreed with Endrew’s parents’ assertion that the IDEA requires opportunities for disabled students that are “substantially equal to the opportunities afforded to children without disabilities.” It rejected that argument in Rowley, it said, and nothing has changed.
The court went on to say that there’s no bright-line rule in Rowley because every child’s circumstances are different. However, it said, that’s not an invitation for courts to substitute their own judgment on educational policy for the judgment of school authorities.
“A reviewing court may fairly expect those authorities to be able to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances,” the court wrote.
The ruling was brought up during confirmation hearings for 10th Circuit judge and Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch this morning. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., noted that Gorsuch had found against students in eight of 10 cases involving the IDEA. (Gorsuch was not on the 10th Circuit panel in Endrew’s case (PDF). NPR notes that Gorsuch wrote in one case, Thompson R2 School District v. Luke P. that the IDEA’s free, appropriate public education standard “is not an onerous one.”

a fly spec in the pepper in the overall.

Media's attempt to make a banquet out of a ham sandwich.

"We were bound by circuit precedent, a case called Urban v Jefferson County School District [from] 1996, which said the appropriate standard was de minimis," Gorsuch told Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin. "That’s the law of my circuit, Senator. And I’ve been asked an awful lot about whether I abide by precedent and whether I always like the results I reach. Here’s a case for you... If anyone is suggesting that I like a result where an autistic child happens to lose, it's a heartbreaking accusation. Heartbreaking."

Neil Gorsuch Confirmation: Supreme Court Rules Against Him | Time.com

Originally Posted by Guest

a fly spec in the pepper in the overall.

Media's attempt to make a banquet out of a ham sandwich.

You must be proud of being a heartless person

Originally Posted by Guest

a fly spec in the pepper in the overall.

Media's attempt to make a banquet out of a ham sandwich.

Originally Posted by Guest

You must be proud of being a heartless person

"Educating" the severely retarded is a waste of time and effort. It's like heroic surgery for a 95 y/o. It's like doing whatever you can to save a preemie that will NEVER have a normal life.

You ladies shouldn't try to save everybody.

I guess that adds to the .003% of his rulings that have been over turned.

Standing up for the little guy? Diane Feinstein was sorry she asked.

Originally Posted by Guest

"Educating" the severely retarded is a waste of time and effort. It's like heroic surgery for a 95 y/o. It's like doing whatever you can to save a preemie that will NEVER have a normal life.

You ladies shouldn't try to save everybody.

You know, you never know until it happens to you, just how you will react to things. Some day you may be 95 and wanting to continue. Some day your son may be the father of a sweet and charming retarded child. Some day your wife may be in a terrible car accident and end up with half of the reasoning she now has. No one expects anything like this to happen and yet they usually react with valiant hope and a fighting spirit, misplaced as you think it is.

Originally Posted by Guest

You know, you never know until it happens to you, just how you will react to things. Some day you may be 95 and wanting to continue. Some day your son may be the father of a sweet and charming retarded child. Some day your wife may be in a terrible car accident and end up with half of the reasoning she now has. No one expects anything like this to happen and yet they usually react with valiant hope and a fighting spirit, misplaced as you think it is.

We CAN'T afford to be spending millions of dollars on people who can't /won't pay the commensurate premiums. Period.

Originally Posted by Guest

We CAN'T afford to be spending millions of dollars on people who can't /won't pay the commensurate premiums. Period.

I imagine I have seen about twenty more years of life than you have and changed my mind on a lot of things.

These kids have amazing musical talent. One of them is our kid.

People Who Have Williams Syndrome - Bing video

His thoughts about women in the workplace are antiquated as well. He will be a disaster for women rights, minority rights, and the disabled, as a Supreme court justice. But the Republicans will confirm him.

Originally Posted by Guest

His thoughts about women in the workplace are antiquated as well. He will be a disaster for women rights, minority rights, and the disabled, as a Supreme court justice. But the Republicans will confirm him.

You mean a disaster for the inferior who rely on affirmative action and quotas...?

Originally Posted by Guest

a fly spec in the pepper in the overall.

Media's attempt to make a banquet out of a ham sandwich.

Thats what you opinion is, " fly spec in the pepper". I hope you do not have any disabilities, if you do turn in your disability parking card, because you do not need no stinking help.

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I imagine I have seen about twenty more years of life than you have and changed my mind on a lot of things.

These kids have amazing musical talent. One of them is our kid.

People Who Have Williams Syndrome - Bing video

My special needs cousin (she has been 14 for 40 years? lol) is as sweet as the day is long. I don't know if she has any musical talent...but she LOVES music, and knows and can recite the lyrics and names of artists to an incredible genre. I think her education was at a special facility and funded by her parents? Hard to fault that...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by dimwitdave

Thats what you opinion is, " fly spec in the pepper". I hope you do not have any disabilities, if you do turn in your disability parking card, because you do not need no stinking help.

Did you read Gracie's post and fail to comprehend?? Or, are you just hoping to get a better parking spot at Walmart...


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk