My Supreme Court best hypothetical

I like the Thomas Doctrine, which says an unconstitutional act by the human government agent, by written law or direct action, must be proven.  Skip the bull shit about how it was done and go see the last government human in contact with the alleged event.  The Kagan doctrine is the same at its root. Yet they come to different conclusions. Why? Neither heard the real evidence, did the government agent check to see if religious doctrine and education were separated. Thomas right, no evidence presented. Kagan right, evidence presented, but none of the evidence in method, there she saw human intent.

Here is my hypothetical, serious.  Consider the case where a government agent hires Watson, the IBM robot. The robot was given the job of wandering the streets talking to people.  Is government really held responsible for any speech made by Watson in its journeys?

Watson is a bag chips. A government agency with a sense of humor might just do that, put Watson in a Robovan.