Rep. Amash: While you’re here and explaining your vote on this, will you also please explain your ‘yea’ vote on #HR620 back on February 15 that gutted a key provision of the American with Disabilities Act?
-
-
-
That law has been routinely abused. There are a few disabled people who make a living by suing non compliant businesses. This bill gives them 6 months to fix the accessibility before the “victim” can sue.
-
It diminishes our national magnanimity to curtail policies for public well-being based on a small number of people exploiting loopholes.
-
As is, a business can be sued for an accessibility issue they didn’t even know about. Six months is a pretty appropriate amount of time for remedying it, what with permits for renovations and inspections. A business that fails to fix it can still be sued.
-
The court system already has controls against fraudulent lawsuits. Plaintiffs in accessibility lawsuits still have to demonstrate standing, willful neglect by the business, etc.
-
I am not talking about fraudulent suits. I am talking about a business being sued without being given a chance to correct the accessibility issue first. The new bill ensures that won't happen anymore, while still protecting the right to sue if correction is not done.
-
However, it places the burden of compliance on disabled persons by requiring them to challenge a business’s non-compliance, rather than incentivizing businesses to meet accessibility criteria. That’s a huge step backwards.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Wow, seriously? They are trying to shut down social media, among other things. Or: make all of these companies potentially liable, all the time, and thus at the government’s mercy. And that’s not to mention the retroactivity part. Wondering whether they thought this through.

-
You're exactly right, and they've definitely thought it through. The giveaway is the "How could anyone vote against this?" bill name.
-
So revulsifying.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Please explain what "ex post facto" means in relation to congress and legislation.
-
It means *after the fact*. They are setting precedent that will be expanded to other areas, that allows them to further selectivity prosecute crimes- now crimes that were not crimes at the time they were committed can be prosecuted *after the fact*. Gutting the justice system.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1) I love you Justin. 2) I knew that was a garbage bill the second I read the name of it. It’s getting pretty ridiculous. “HOW COULD YOU VOTE NO ON A BILL CALLED “SAVE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN??”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So only 25 Congressmen voted to support the constitution. Sad.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“I like this law. Therefore, it’s constitutional.” -
@KevinGutzman -
I sense sarcasm here from
@KevinGutzman . -
He was lampooning the standard SCOTUS justices use to make rulings on constitutionality. It’s in his book, Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. Highly recommended!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So bc of your principles you voted against an anti-sex trafficking bill??
-
This is not an anti-sex trafficking bill. This is an anti prostitution bill.
#Sexwork is not trafficking.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.