It's hard not to root for Casey Martin.

He's the would-be pro golfer who sued the Professional Golf Association.

He has a degenerative circulatory disease in his right leg. Sooner or later, as I understand it, the disease will cost him his leg.

Until then he wants to play golf on the pro tour. His condition precludes that, however, because he is physically unable to walk an 18-hole round.

PGA rules state that golfers at the pro level have to walk the entire 18 holes of each round.

So Martin sued the PGA after it refused to allow him to ride in a cart. The case eventually wound up in the Supreme Court, and the court this past week ruled in his favor.

I really wish the PGA would have relented early on and just let the guy ride.

Of course, that would have miffed a lot of the current tour players. They don't like to talk about it, but I bet most of them probably feel like Martin is gaining a big advantage by getting to ride in a cart.

I suppose one might make the argument that his level of physical stamina might be boosted on a hot day because he didn't have to walk several thousand yards while all the others golfers did.

It does seem to tilt the playing field to his advantage.

Others would argue that to level the field for Martin, all the other players would have to suffer a crippling leg ailment.

Allowing him to ride, in effect, levels the playing field for Martin. It doesn't give him an advantage.

I suppose the PGA felt compelled to defend its right to make its own rules and that is the problem that I have with this ruling.

In other words, I guess the question for me is, "Are the rules of the PGA really any of the Supreme Court's business?"

Certainly, it would have been easy for the PGA to make an exception and state that all other exceptions in the future would be made on a case-by-case basis.

But they chose not to and now we have a Supreme Court ruling.

In a 7-2 vote, the court ruled that golf is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Further, that Martin should be allowed to use a cart because that accommodation is a "reasonable modification" of the rules that doesn't "fundamentally alter" the essentials of the game."

Here is what Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said about Martin riding a cart: "What it can be said to do, on the other hand, is to allow Martin the chance to qualify for and compete in the athletic events (the PGA Tour) offers to those members of the public who have the skill and desire to enter. That is exactly what the ADA requires.'

The two dissenting members of the court disagreed, saying that ADA "mandates no such ridiculous thing" wrote Antonin Scalia, adding, 'Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question. To say that something is 'essential' is ordinarily to say that it is necessary to the achievement of a certain object. But since it is the very nature of a game to have no object except amusement (that is what distinguishes games from productive activity), it is quite impossible to say that any of a game's arbitrary rules is 'essential.' Eighteen-hole golf courses, 10-foot-high basketball hoops, 90-foot baselines, 100-yard football fields - all are arbitrary and none is essential.'

So, what hath the court wrought?

Basically, it appears we have forever changed the rules of the games - all the games.

Now the rules of the games are subject to a review by the high court when it comes to disabilities.

If the height of a basketball hoop can be argued nonessential or nonfundamental, why not lower it to make the game more accessible to shorter people?

Or maybe we could make the ball smaller to accommodate players with small hands.

Should we shorten baselines to accommodate slower hitters? Should we lower hurdles for short-legged hurdlers?

Scalia noted the inevitability of a lawsuit from the parents of a Little-Leaguer suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder. The youngster deserves four strikes instead of three.

Of course the ruling didn't provide for any of that, but certainly those premises aren't far stretches to envision in this litigious society.

What is fundamental? What is essential? Who will decide?

The debates will rage.

Golf great Jack Nicklaus - one of the most amiable gentlemen in the game - took issue with the court's decision that walking was not a fundamental of the sport.

'I think we ought to take them all out and play golf,' Nicklaus said. 'I think they'd change their minds. I promise you, it's fundamental.'

And long-time tour pro Steve Pate had this to say:

'Walking six miles a day, six days a week, is part of the deal."

I don't begrudge Martin his shot at the PGA tour. I just really wish it could have happened without the Supreme Court getting involved. [[In-content Ad]]