| || |
Ask Marilyn: More on Watson and Courtney
Jim Bobreski of Penn Yan, New York, writes:
Marilyn: Thank you for publishing my question. (January 6, 2013) I would like to provide this food for thought in response to Marilyn's answer. In a case like Dred Scott v. Sanford, would Courtney determine that a man was still property and therefore could not bring suit? Or that slavery would be permissible under our constitution? (The last of the Jim Crow laws weren't repealed until 1968!) The case law for the Americans with Disability Act has determined that drug addiction, alcoholism and criminal behavior are protected under the ADA for job discrimination; blindness, loss of limb(s), and facial deformity are not.
The purpose of law is to establish that rigidity as laws represent the boundary that a free society operates under.
Hmm. You seem to be arguing against Courtney in your first paragraph and the opposite in the second paragraph. This may illustrate the difficulty of programming Courtney, who will then be rigid.