Marta Russell wrote:
> 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
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901