James Farmelant wrote:
> --------- Begin forwarded message ----------
> From: JKSCHW at aol.com
> To: farmelantj at juno.com
> Cc: JKSCHW at aol.com
> Subject: Re: Michael Pugliese <debsian at pacbell.net>: Re: Re: Posner and
> Gates
> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 22:18:56 EST
> Message-ID: <0.6d428034.25773f20 at aol.com>
>
> snip
>
> This is all academic theory, good clean fun in the journals. Mostly it
> does
> not infect Posner's interpretation of the law in his opinions and it does
> not
> get in the way of his real contributions to humane learning. It has a
> harmful
> effect in legitimating rigidities that Posner is not susceptible to in
> the
> work of lesser judges and scholars.
Here is a direct example of some Posner "humane learning."Ruling against a reasonable accommodation for a wheelchair user in this case, Posner relates the business schematic of cost/benefit analysis to the ADA:
"If the nation's employers have potentially unlimited financial obligations to 43 million disabled persons, the Americans with Disabilities Act will have imposed an indirect tax potentially greater than the national debt. We do not find an intention to bring about such a radical result in either the language of the Act or its history. The preamble actually "markets" the Act as a cost saver, pointing to "billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity." §12101(a)(9). The savings will be illusory if employers are required to expend many more billions in accommodation than will be saved by enabling disabled people to work."
Marta Russell