I have been much more sympathetic to the blind every since Carlos on "Desperate Housewives" became blind.

Re: vending machines--if they have to be redesigned, maybe it will prompt manufacturers to make more that accept credit cards or that can do purchases through cell phones (as I've heard are available in Japan). That would be cool. Thanks blind people!

@2:44, agreed!
And let me add that yours is one of the most cogent arguments I have seen in an ATL comment thread in a long time.

Should we leave the 1 dollar bill as the standard size and go up to 8.5x11 for the 100 dollar bill? Or should we leave 100 dollar bill as the standard size and go down to thumbnail size for the 1 dollar bill?

2:44 here. That should be "ever since," not "every since."

Also, to everyone who voted "no," what is the best argument in favor of screwing the blind (other than just tradition / "this is how it always has been")?

2:49:

Just like the gays, people choose to be blind. So they should get no preferential treatment!

@2:48 - maybe the dollar should be sized according to its value in relation to the Euro or the British Pound. Which means thumbnail-sized, I'm afraid. :-(

This doesn't just help the blind! This helps the alcoholics and drug addicts among us. Can't tell you how many times I've been so drunk I couldn't see and inadvertently "overtipped" a bartender or paid more for some blow than I actually meant to....

This doesn't just help the blind! This helps the alcoholics and drug addicts among us. Can't tell you how many times I've been so drunk I couldn't see and inadvertently "overtipped" a bartender or paid more for some blow than I actually meant to....

2:42, the blind don't want your sympathy, you jackass, they want independence.

It's ADA all the way, cut-and-dried as it can be. I'm amazed it took this long to come out with this long-awaited, obvious "legal development."

Come on, people, just retool the machines to cut the fucking money into slightly different sizes. It's NOT that big of a problem.

I'm hoping we move to gold dabloons

Breaking? What have you been doing all day?

2:56: And what about all of the US currency currently circulating around the world? And what about the vending machines, money counting machines, etc.? This isn't an easy fix.

Now I'm going to have to go to nudie bars with a suitcase full of legalpad-sized $20 bills. That's a real pain in the ass.

Can a blind person reliably distinguish between different sized bills? Try it yourself with some leftover Euros from that last trip to Amsterdam - it's a lot harder than it looks. Unless you always carry one of each with you as a means of comparison, you might as well forget about it. And how is a blind person to tell whether they've been handed a fake?

@2:44 / 2:49 - you alluded to the answer already yourself: the argument against the blind is that back when Carlos was in business, he screwed over a lot of people, so he sort of had it coming to him.

But yeah, other than that, there aren't many reasons besides tradition not to have bills of different sizes and colors, which is why every country I have been to other than the U.S. does it that way. The larger sizes of Euro notes are a little harder to put in an American wallet, but its not that big of a deal. The different colors make it easier even for those of us with good eyesight to count money and avoid mistakes.

The biggest opponents of this reform should be the churches - if bills are different sizes and colors, people are less likely to accidentally drop a $20 in the collection plate when they really just meant to put in a dollar.

3:02--scratch and sniff to the rescue! 1s could be peppermint, 5s could be pine trees, 20s could be chocolate, etc.

People that are blind and anosmic are just SOL.

It's life, it's not always fair, get used to it.

3:08 -- as long as the $10,000 bill smells like pork chops and mustache wax, I'm on board!

What about bags of chips, soda cans, cereal boxes, medicine bottles, and practically every other product package used in the world?!? It sucks thinking I am about to suck down a delicious crab juice and instead I am shocked by the syrupy sweet burn of Mountain Dew! Stop the discrimination NOW. I demand braille on EVERYTHING!

I think the internet discriminates against the blind. No more internet.

3:20, a lot of things are harder than they look (har har har) when you're blind.

2:44/2:49 asks: "Also, to everyone who voted "no," what is the best argument in favor of screwing the blind (other than just tradition / "this is how it always has been")?"

yeah. and it's almost always the argument used to resist change that could benefit a minority group. it's generally a damn successful one, too.

I say we do away with money completely and go back to a bartering system. I'm hoping to pick up the new 5 series for 16 bushels of corn, some flour, and my wife's homemade preserves.

How about the fact that taxpayers would have to pay to redisgn the bills and I don't want any more of my money wasted.

How about the fact that taxpayers would have to pay to redesign the bills and I don't want any more of my money wasted.

3:20, a lot of things are harder than they look (har har har) when you're blind.

2:44/2:49 asks: "Also, to everyone who voted "no," what is the best argument in favor of screwing the blind (other than just tradition / "this is how it always has been")?"

yeah. and it's almost always the argument used to resist change that could benefit a minority group. it's generally a damn successful one, too.

2:49,

How about convenience? I hate ending up with a bills of different sizes. They get mixed in with each other, you overlook the smaller ones, some fall out. Plus, it's much easier to count identically sized bills. Am I supposed to get a wallet that fits the bigger ones and then dig into it for the smaller ones? Or do I get a wallet that fits the smaller ones and fold the bigger ones? I'd probably just start carrying a pouch of sacajaweas.

Not to mention that aesthetically, I think it would look terrible.

Coins are already differentiated by size. Use coins instead of paper money

1) "Out of more than 180 countries with printed currency, only the US uses money without changes in color or size."

2) The cost is minimal as the Treasury Department changes its currency every 10 years or so anyways and the ruling allows them to make the changes in due course as it sees fit to bring currency into compliance.

3) "The Secretary's argument is analogous to contending that merely because the mobility impaired may be able either to rely on the assistance of strangers or to crawl on all fours in navigating architectural obstables, they are not denied meaningful access to public buildings. Such dependence is anathema to the stated purpose of the Rehabilitation Act."

This last point is about as close to a legal truism as jurisprudentially possible. The dissent objected to the ruling on procedural grounds.

Sooooo there are no harms. There are no costs. There are huge benefits for a vulnerable segment of society. It is patently required by law. And it is normatively just.

So, lots of positive and no negatives. And why is this fomenting anger?

Can someone who voted "no" give me a better reason then, "Come on!"

I understand social justice is hard, but in this case, it's easy. Why not get behind this and feel good that justice was done?

Having come from a country that uses different size bills, I thought the US dollars were the most convenient thing ever. They fit so nicely in your wallet and small bills don't get all crumpled up.

Not to mention, it is much more efficient to print same size bills.

Money doesn't discriminate agaisnt the poor; money discriminates against the poor!

No worries, anyways; this will be over turned by the Supreme Court.

I voted "yes" but only going foward. What would it hurt to put the demonation in braile on the bill?

Wouldn't it be much easier to put braille on the bills than change the sizes?

3:32 here. That should've been "Money doesn't discriminate against the blind; money discriminates against the poor!"

Stupid three-martini lunch

3:23 - hmm,

you hating the "inconvenience" of having different sized bills, and the money "looking terrible"
vs.
A blind person hating the "inconvenience" of not being able to tell how much money they are holding in their hand.

. . . yeah, this one is a close one. . .

I don't see how this would help blind people. With coins, some have ridges on their edges, and some don't. Coupled with size differences, you can tell coins apart by touch. With paper money, the only difference would be size. Are blind people so adept with their sense of touch that they can tell a bill by its size? How would you know which bill is which by size? My guess is that you could tell that the bill in one hand was bigger than the bill in the other hand, but not that one bill was a $5 bill and the other a $10 bill.

The best argument against this ridiculous opinion is that the law doesn't require it. While it might be a nice thing for the Treasury to do the next time it redesigns currency, the law does not mandate the change. Like every aspect of life for blind people, dealing with currency is more difficult than for those with sight. That is unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with discrimination.

3:23 - hmm,

you hating the "inconvenience" of having different sized bills, and the money "looking terrible"
vs.
A blind person hating the "inconvenience" of not being able to tell how much money they are holding in their hand.

. . . yeah, this one is a close one. . .

I'll bet this will make the next court social gathering with Randolph and Tatel quite awkward.

3:37 & 3:46 here. Sorry about the duplicate posts, but on the first one I got a 404 error, so I refreshed and it re-posted.

Lat, your server sucks.

@ 3:38- you carry a bound bundle of measuring sticks for the bills. hold the bill up to the sticks & you can determine its value by which stick matches its length.

Paper and metallic money should be secondary and tertiary choices. Plastic should be the first and used in 99.638% of transactions. All retailers should be required to make cc only lines (no spotting the 63 cents on a 13.63 total with your 20 so that you can get $7 exactly in change). Old ladies with checkbooks should be arrested (especially when they first open their purse after everything is bagged --- did you just realize you would have to pay??). And to the idiots learning how to use the self-serve checkout, where can I send you my bill for my time that you wasted?

Okay, this is not the fault of the blind but it had to be said.

3:26 - "Can someone who voted 'no' give me a better reason then, 'Come on!'"

Yes. The court is supposed to, at least in theory, base their decision on the law. The law in question, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, states the following:

"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency . . . ."

The court adopted an expansive reading of the scope of this statute, but then read in an implied exception when accommodation would cause an undue burden (even they were susceptible to the "come on" defense). Here, though, they found that the exception did not apply.

Since there is no such exception in the statute, I think that it is more reasonable to construe the entire provision more narrowly, so that the sorts of situations that would fall under an exception would not need to be excepted in the first place. Such a reading would almost certainly be a more accurate reflection of the intention of Congress in passing the Act. At least with respect to outcomes (which I do not believe to be dispositive in interpreting statutes), I find it hard to believe that Congress thought that they were requiring the Treasury to make different sized bills when they enacted the Rehabilitation Act.

Just because something doesn't seem fair and fixing it doesn't seem too hard does not mean that a court should mandate an overhaul.

Um, 3:42? The ADA requires accessibility to public buildings for persons with mobility issues. We didn't build courthouses back in the day and not add wheelchair ramps so that we could be "discriminatory," but that isn't the issue. Courthouses still had to add the ramps even though the builders had no discriminatory intent at the time. The "indifference and thoughtlessness" that resulted is in and of itself discriminatory, and that's why public buildings had to add accommodations. That is the law, that is why this is required, and that is why your argument fails.

lol @ 352

So since navigating stairs is difficult for people in wheelchairs, it's simply unfortunate? We shouldn't at least make an effort to put in ramps?

Please make it to SCOTUS.

Next they're going to want the right to vote.

3:52 - 3:26(2) - Thanks! I appreciate that. I never thought I'd find reasonable conversation here and I appreciate it. I still respectfully disagree but now I understand the intellectual rationale for it. Hooray for not devolving to the lowest common denominator!

Blind people smell funny.

4:07 - Actually, blind people smell better than the rest of us. I have seen them do it.

This will almost certainly go to SCOTUS unless Congress legislates one way or the other (either requiring or not requiring the Treasury to redesign bills). I don't see how they'd possible just say, "Sure, D.C. Circuit, go ahead and tell the Treasury that Congress has required them to redesign the currency in such a vague way. We don't need to take another look at that."

After seeing the poll numbers, could this site be populated by a larger group of apologetic suburban liberals?

"I find it hard to believe that Congress thought that they were requiring the Treasury to make different sized bills when they enacted the Rehabilitation Act."

It probably isn't a specific fact pattern that they considered, you're right there; however it's certainly in keeping with the expressed principle underlying the legislation, and I'm sure if it had been brought up to the authors they'd be in agreement with the decision.

See Kennedy, J., Lawrence v. Texas (2003), acknowledging that the authors of the 14th Amendment were not specifically considering homosexual acts, but actively chose to write the Amendment in broad terms to cover future unforeseen circumstances when they could just as easily have written it to cover only people with dark skin and nappy hair.

Just add brail. That's what the Canadians do on their uniformly sized bills. No need to resize the bills and redesign the vending machines.

@3:52(1) - I've got the only measuring stick I'll need with me at all times already. ;)

Adding braille would be stooopid. A poke wiith a toothpick would get me 10 times more change from the blind guy selling magazines.

4:16 -

The intent as to outcomes is not controlling, but I disagree with you that the drafters of the Rehabilitation Act would have agreed with this decision. I agree that legislatures (and constitutional ratifiers) often prefer broader rules. Here, though, I just don't think that such a broad reading was intended. Also, I would say that this falls within the scope of FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco. There, the Court held that they would not read the FDCA to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco in part because such a scope would have been a politically volatile decision and therefore would probably be dealt with directly, rather than as part of a general authorization. I think that an overhaul of the currency's design is a big enough deal that Congress would mention it directly if they wanted to require a redesign under the Rehabilitation Act.

3:22 -- agreed. The amount of tax money we're talking about spending on this is significant, especially in a recession. Various governments (federal, state, city) already manage to find a way to spend roughly 40% of my salary -- they certainly don't need any new ideas!!

I agree with the suggestion to add brail or something similar (different textures for each denomination). It would also cost money, but not as much, and it's a much more logical solution. Different sizes will only help people if they're either very good at handling money and with a very good physical memory, or if they have a bill in every denomination so they can compare which one is bigger than another. But if we're talking a difference of, say, an inch between a one dollar bill and a twenty dollar bill... I mean, can all of you tell just by feeling something whether it's 2-1/2 inches or 3-1/2 inches??

Well, maybe the ladies can.

4:32 -

Well put, but I think the previous poster's observation that the Treasury customarily redesigns the bill as a matter of course every 10 years anyway bears some weight.

I think I'll read the briefs for this case. Very interesting.

While they are at it, Treasury - please eliminate the penny. They cost more to manufacture then they are worth!

While they are at it: Treasury - please eliminate the penny. They cost more to manufacture then they are worth!

4:34 -

I'm sure we can pay for it by trimming some of the recent subsidies to thoroughbred breeders or silly military projects ('gay bomb').

In all seriousness though, I agree that I like my paper money uniform in size, and I like it green. (Though I have to say I do enjoy the colored accents they've been introducing.) I don't see why the same objective can't be achieved by simply embossing the big colored number on the reverse of the bill.

When did we start letting blind people have money?

They also need to get rid of the stupid dollar coins.

Leave dollar coins alone!

To all the people saying that the Treasury should "just use braille" on our money, the braille would not be durable and would wear off after a few years of circulation.

You would know that IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO READ THE COURT'S OPINION.

[Or if Kash had bothered to read the opinion.]

People, after you're blind for a while, it doesn't become very hard to differentiate between bills of different sizes even if the differences are minor.

Try putting your hand over some Braille, and see how hard it is to actually figure out the differences in dots just by feeling. Then ask yourself how blind people can read whole books in Braille. They've had practice.

After I was a receptionist for a while, I could pick up an envelope and tell you if it required one stamp or two. That is the diff. between more than 1 oz and less. So, yeah, you can develop a really detailed physical memory.

The sizes could be kept the same add instead other physical differences could be used. Perferation. Angled Edges. Any others?

make the 1 out of paper; the 5 out of plastic; the 10 out of wood; the 20 out of aluminum; the 50 out of rubber; and the 100 out of leather

problem solved - net get back to billing, all of you

make the 1 out of paper; the 5 out of plastic; the 10 out of wood; the 20 out of aluminum; the 50 out of rubber; and the 100 out of leather

problem solved - now get back to billing, all of you

By far the most fascinating part of this thread is how the repeated comment at 3:22 and 3:33, while identical, align differently. Explain that!

Look, I was born legally blind 29 years ago, I still am. I have use a cane to get around, get all the accomodations I can handle and I have to say I thought the trial court's decision was absurd in 2006 and this decision today equally as foolish.

Look it is not societys job to adapt to the needs of every disabled person, it is, to large degree, our responsiblity to adapt to the world around us. When you expect less from someone with a disability guess what, you GET less. The American Council for the Blind is spending countless resources to cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars in completely overhauling our monetary system not to mention the many types of technology that will have to replaced to handle the new bills. What the ACB fails to consider is that if blind people don't have jobs (75% unemployment among those who are blind or visually impaired) then it really doesn't matter what the money looks like, perhaps that's an issue worth addressing.

As a legally blind person I was unaware of this rash of my blind ciitzens getting ripped off by crooked individuals looking to abuse our paper money......but then again ACB would probably claim I just didn't see it.

Why not use perforations instead of braille? They'd be durable, and while probably not quite as convenient, at least usable.

Obviously put more perforations on the lower-denomination bills so people can't just punch more to screw over blind people.

1. This will almost certainly be overturned.

2. If it isn't, I agree that gold dabloons would be cool.

this is such a pointless argument. no one can seriously believe that paper money has a meaningful lifespan. only a few years before there's no such thing.

Help me choose which alternative post to make:

1. This is bullshit.

2. This is bullshit. I have sympathy for the blind, but this is going to cost a great deal in order to address something that I sure as hell don't care about.

3. In other news, hookers discriminate against the impotent, gravity discriminates against jet packs, and the location of the nation's capital in D.C. discriminates against the West coast and Guam. Sometimes things just are the way they are.

4. Damn. I'm now going to have to cut construction paper in different sizes to pay the blind guy who mows my lawn.

If all "victims" were like 9:22, we'd have some hope in not getting our asses kicked by China and India over the next 20 years.

If all "victims" were like 9:22, we'd have some hope in not getting our asses kicked by China and India over the next 20 years.

Make the bills out of plastic, like Australia and NZ. They last forever. They feel kind of weird at first, but you get used to them. Then you all could keep your dollar bills that you seem so attached to, even though dollar coins are far more efficient to use.

whaaa! i might be mildly inconvenienced in having to make an accomodation to make life a little easier for someone less fortunate! oh noes!!1!!!

If the decision ends up standing, one option could be to change the texture of the different types of bills to that, even if the size is the same, they feel slightly different to the touch. This could be done by changing the manner in which the reserve notes are weaved (since they are cotton and linen fabric) based on the denomination. Doing so would also help the Treasury combat counterfeiting, which has been the primary reason for many of the changes in the bills in recent years.

There are easy solutions to this problem: print some denominations on colored paper, especially pink, which is my favorite. And make the paper scented - it gives it that little extra something, don't you think?

I wasn't born legally blind, but I was born legally blonde. Snaps!

Elle Woods

and the world is now a better place-----

That's why they call it a handicap. It's supposed to make things more difficult.

I support leveling the playing field for those with disabilities, but this is unreasonable.

There are currently around 300 million US residents, and about 1 million are 'legally blind'. That's not even half of one percent of the population.

I don't want the government wasting money redoing machines and designing currency, etc for the benefit of less than a half percent of our population, especially as paper currency will meet it's death within the next several decades, anyway.

Frankly, I believe the US would spend less money on all this if they just gave every legally blind person a free rechargeable credit card with a $0 balance. Blind people could then get on their telecommunications equipment (special phone systems, computers, etc) and put money on the card from their bank account.

Oh yeah, what about CHECKS?

9:22: the Clarence Thomas of the blind.

@ 12:58 PM

I guess you should blame government for not repealing the Rehabilitation act. Also the "free rechargeable credit card with $0 balance" clearly does not replace cash. There are plenty of situations where cash is the only option today.

"There are currently around 300 million US residents, and about 1 million are 'legally blind'. That's not even half of one percent of the population."

Wow. Talk about statistical spin.

Yeah, it's less than 0.5% -- but it's still A MILLION PEOPLE. Real numbers do matter.