and herein lies the problem not only w/ this scenario, but also w/ judicial and administrative decisionmaking in general. that is, statutes are often (but not always) vaguely worded or phrased, or for whatever other reason simply do not cover any and every situation. so these things end up in a court or an administrative agency, where a judge or administrative agent has to make a decision based upon these same vague, under-inclusive laws. it is PRECISELY here that the political right (NOT JUST the religious right!) goes into conniptions and starts screaming about "judicial tyranny" when the judges HAVE to make decisions (and decide in ways that the right-wing does not like).
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:30 (nineteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:44 (nineteen years ago) link
you are correct. we really should look at this statute though.
at the very least, its constitutionality is suspect.
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:50 (nineteen years ago) link
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:55 (nineteen years ago) link
By 'vulnerable' you mean on her back then?
― Jimmy Mod Knows You Eat Your Own Farts (ModJ), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 22:08 (nineteen years ago) link
Shit, a girl who can express herself as well as she did likes to be on top.
Too far?
― rocknrolldetox (rocknrolldetox), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 22:18 (nineteen years ago) link
― Jimmy Mod Knows You Eat Your Own Farts (ModJ), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 22:20 (nineteen years ago) link
i imagine the judge rubbing his chin thoughtfully.
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 22:21 (nineteen years ago) link
― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:52 (nineteen years ago) link