June 04, 2001

 

LEX APOSTATA, LEX BARBARA

  Mike's Comment
of the Week
     
  Cool Site of the Week
     
  Comment Archives
     
  Industry Links
     
     
     
     
     
 
SEARCH
  Send us e-mail
    Mail Us
 

Demonstrating far more sentimentality than common sense, or application of rational legal principles, the US Supreme Court ruled on 29 May that disabled golfer Casey Martin can use a cart on the PGA tour.

Martin, a Stanford University teammate of superstar Tiger Woods, has Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome, a rare circulatory disorder in his right leg, causing extreme pain in walking. Eventual amputation may even be necessary in this condition. He argued that he could shoot just fine, but could not handle the walking requirement of the tour. When the PGA did not let him use a cart, he sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and he won in a 7-2 decision. (Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting.)

Let us consider the tortured reasoning that allowed our highest court to render such a decision, but please realize that the majority wanted a particular outcome, and then reasoned backwards. No other explanation is possible.

First of all, it was necessary to show that the ADA even applied in this case. The justices ruled that pro golfers were covered by the law of "public accommodations," meaning they qualify as customers or clients because they must pay to compete in the tour's qualifying tournament. This notion is dicey at best, and more likely is just plain absurd.

The public accommodations theory would apply to John Q. Public, who wanted to use a golf course. Certain concessions would have to be made under ADA regarding parking, accessibility, and other issues, but he could surely use a cart if he were disabled. After all, he is not on the PGA tour, he is just a normal weekend golfer! And, he DOES pay to play. He is a customer of the golf course.

To hold that professionals on the tour are customers, merely because they have to pay an entrance fee is stretching the definition of "customer" beyond Clintonesque levels. The customers of the PGA are the people who watch the tournaments on TV or in person. Moreover, if the public accommodation theory were to have any merit, it would better apply to the owners of the golf course, not the governing body of the sport.

Now that the majority fantasized its way through the ADA element, it then had to attack the PGA's position that walking was an essential part of the Tour. Of course, it concluded that it was not, noting among other findings, that certain golf events allow the use of carts. Therefore, walking is not essential to golf.

But, this is beside the point. Why can't the PGA set whatever rules it pleases for the Pro Tour? Who died and decreed that the Tour must play "pure" golf, as the Court majority defines it?

While you are pondering the giant Pandora's Box that the Supremes opened, you might compare the attitudes of Martin and 16-year-old Mallory Cope, who competes within the American Junior Golf Association. Young Mallory suffers from cystic fibrosis, diabetes, a pancreatic disorder, and severe asthma. Despite all these conditions, the plucky teenager has played her way to a number 23 national ranking, and has never requested a cart. She doesn't even use one when she plays with family or friends. You can bet that if Cope lives long enough to turn pro, she still won't ask for a cart.

Martin is certainly good enough to be a club pro, so he wouldn't exactly starve if he weren't on the Tour. He'd probably be happier and less stressed. As it is, he's not tearing up the leader boards at the moment.

So, what are we to conclude? When self-indulgence is encouraged by the overreaching Nanny State, we all lose. And every time the Supreme Court creates rights out of whole cloth (Miranda, Roe), the effects are devastating. Wait and see.


 

Last Update:
Copyright ©1996 - 2002 Interscan Corporation. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.