The Casey Martin Case - -Who Deserves
What? —Justice by Michael Sandel
I found the
US Supreme Court Case of Casey Martin very interesting and fascinating. For the
background of the reader, a brief synopsis of who Casey Martin is and why he
matters, especially as it relates to ethical theories will be provided.
Casey Martin
gained notoriety as a golfer for what would become a very compelling case that
he took to the Supreme Court. During this time, Martin was an excellent golfer
who played for Stanford’s championship golf team and then played on the PGA
tour as a pro. Because of a longstanding cardiovascular disorder, he had a very
bad leg that could cause serious implications down the road if not treated with
care in his day to day life (including in his golf game). Because of this
disability, he requested that he be able to use a golf cart during tournaments.
The PGA denied his request because of an existing rule that did not allow golf
carts to be used in professional tournaments. Martin did not accept that
answer. He took the decision to court, when then ended up going to the Supreme
Court. There were many that sided with both views. Several well-known golfers
even testified against Casey Martin.
The outcome
for Martin was ruled in his favor: 7 to 2. Justice John Paul Stevens. According
to Sandel pertaining to the outcome of the case, “The Court concluded that accommodating
Martin’s disability by letting him ride in a cart would not fundamentally alter
the game or give him an unfair advantage,” (Chapter 8, pg. 218). What ensued
during and after this four-year long debacle and finally a court decision was a
debate among Justice John Paul Stevens (in favor of allowing he golf cart) and
Justice Antonin Scalia. The case brought up many questions pertaining to
justice, especially examining the Aristotelian theory. The question at hand
was: does walking simply contribute to the game of golf or is it essential? At
the end of the day, what is the point of the game of gold and how does walking
or riding in a cart contribute. I agree with the decision that Justice John
Paul Stevens decided.
