Image via WikipediaHere's how:
Plaintiffs:
1.Make sure to file the case in a district where you're sure that the judge will be sympathetic towards the cause of the blind. In fact, it would be even better if the judge were secretly blind himself, although there has to be enough ambiguity there that nobody knows the status of the judge's sight abilities for certain. Also, make sure that your blind-loving judge is the chief judge in his district so that he can be sure to assign himself to the case.
Judge:
2.Have the judge attempt from the start to make the case as much of a show trial as possible. Try at first to get cameras into the court room so that you can have something akin to the "Scopes Monkey" trial. When a higher court overturns that, insist on a bench trial, as opposed to a narrow legal ruling, so that you can create as much of a circus environment as possible.
3. Turn the issue of licensing (a state right) into an issue involving the U.S. constitution by creating a fundamental right where none existed before. To bolster this, use the country's unfortunate racist history to bring in decisions about sighted black people having the right to drive a car and make the large legal jump to all blind people having the right to a drivers license.
4. When people object and say that, even in principle, a blind person can't drive a car, make sure to claim that the original laws prohibiting people from driving a car were based only on "moral" grounds. Don't mention the fact, in your ruling, that blind people can't drive a car safely, even in principle. In fact, make sure to avoid any discussion of that rather obvious point in your decision at all costs.
5. To further bolster your decision, and to make it harder to overturn on appeal, use the bench trial to find several "facts" about the case -- 80 or so should do the trick. Make the findings as broad as possible, including a combination of facts that are laughable misrepresented (i.e. "your chances historically of being hit by a blind driver are much lower than your chances of being hit by a sighted driver"), thinly veiled ad hominem attacks on the law's original authors (i.e. "the laws were misrepresented to the voters and passed to oppress blind people"), and facts disputed by the the general scientific consensus (i.e. "blind people are better at detecting peripheral objects than sighted people") . When people object, particularly to the unscientific facts, have your supporters in the media meekly explain that, these facts are supported by the evidence presented at trial. However, make no mention of this in your decision, instead pretending like these facts are universally known and accepted in the scientific community.
Defense Attorneys:
6. Make sure that the defense of the current drivers license laws is lead by the most bumbling and inept attorney that you can possibly find, one that almost certainly found his juris doctorate in the bottom of a Cracker Jack box. Have him give evasive and stupid answers when asked relatively simple questions, answers like, "I don't know" and "I don't need to present evidence of that." Also, have the defense counsel call idiots as witnesses that repeatedly contradict points of their own testimony and actually act to support the plaintiff's position. Also, only call two witnesses (compared with the plaintiff's 20 or so witnesses, even though there are scores of expert witnesses to choose from who would be happy to testify and could greatly strengthen your case.
Media:
7. Have your supporters in the media celebrate the ruling that you make as widely and loudly as possible. Make sure to leave out any legal or logical flaws in the ruling -- those things shouldn't detract from the "historic ruling" that extends "equal rights to all".
8. Also make sure that your friends in the media marginalize anyone who opposes your ruling as "old fashioned", "ignorant", or "bigoted". This works even better if you can find a single group among the many who opposed your ruling and fought for passage of the original laws -- say . . . I don't know . . . the Mormons -- and point out all of the silliness in their history as justification for the silliness your judge friend just passed in court.
9. Downplay any "slippery slope" arguments that crop up as a result of the ruling as "ridiculous". Say things like, "A blind person driving a car makes perfect sense, but this is a totally different case from a quadriplegic driving a car. And, two or more blind people driving the same car at the same time? I can't even begin to tell you what's wrong with that idea!"
Using this method, society can help to rectify the injustices long suffered by the blind and ensure that the fundamental right to a drivers license is enjoyed by all!
