Appeals court says U.S. money discriminates against the blind. - Will the treasury cooperate?

I like the question, but it looks like it is open and could go on indefinitely?

They have 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to review.
I'm not sure about the appeal but I suspect it is less than 90 days.

Asked by a reporter what he thought of the ruling, the plaintiff said, "I haven't seen it."

@Erik...that was bad!

Thanks for clarifying Mork!

Mork - are you saying there is an appeal available other than a request to the Supreme Court? What would that be?, if you know.

Blind justice?

Wrangler - I now realize that asking the supreme court to review would be the first step of the appeal process.
I thought they were mutually exclusive when I created the question. Because of this the question is not as I intended it to be. but I think it may still function as settling according to whatever has happened by the time of suspension.

Mork - I confess, I don't understand your clarification ... "but I think it may still function as settling according to whatever has happened by the time of suspension."

If there is an appeal, wouldn't both "Another Appeal" and "Supreme Court asked to review" be winning predictions?

newswrangler - I appologize for my very little knowledge of the U.S. system.
I most certainly could be mistaken thinking that the supreme court would have to be asked to review and approve for an appeal before this could settle as 'another appeal'.
If this question requires a void; by all means do it.
I hope somebody feels to take it upon themselves to repost my American questions.
.... .. .. . . .. . . . destry ? . . .
lol

There could be a further appeal to the Supreme Court. However, they don't have to hear it. If the Supremes choose not to hear it, the appelate decision stands...I think.

Although I'm still waiting for the plaintiff to look over the ruling...<grins>

The Supreme Court can agree to hear the case or chose to not hear the case in which the previous ruling stands. This question is problematic because of the phrasing of the answers. By asking The Supreme Court to consider taking the case they are basically appealing the ruling, regardless if that appeal is successful or not. Therefore answers two and three would be correct. The only way for the question to be settled is if no further litigation is sought. I believe question should be voided as settlement is nearly impossible, and a person can not win by wagering on any option but the first. The other two options would create a void.

Mork - I think you've got most of it -- and it is a great question!

Part of the problem is the Appeals Court both upheld the decision of the lower District Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court, instructing U.S. District Judge James Robertson to decide on the specific steps to be taken in granting the group's (American Council of the Blind) request for relief.

This is interesting as the Treasury Department appealed the case, arguing, in part, that redesigning the currency would create too big a burden -- but what that specific burden would be wasn't part of the appeal. This point was duly noted in the dissenting opinion from the Appeals Court.

The Treasury Department can, of course appeal. I don't know if they can wait to find out what the specific remedy is from the District Court before they appeal further or not (I would want to know ... but I'm not the Treasury Department ;-)

Anyway, how about something like:

[Option] Treasury Dept appeals ruling to the full appeals court.
[Option] Treasury Dept appeals ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
[Option] Treasury Dept announces they will begin process of revising paper money.
[Option] None of the above.

Other users may have suggestions as well.


Google search string:
<http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&q=blind+appeal+court+%22paper+money%22+OR+currency+%22discriminates+OR+discrimination%22&hl=en&gl=>