Quote:
Originally Posted by 9th Engineer
If the letter of the law is in opposition to the spirit or purpose of the law, then the politicians/lawyers who drafted and signed it are in gross negligence.
|
That assumes extenuating circumstances do not and never exist. To not be grossly negligent, the future must be completely predictable. Clearly, 9th, your assumption is rather naive.
No wonder we don't require people with extensive experience as judges. Since every extenuating circumstance is predictable, then we can replace judges with law clerks. We can fire all those Supreme Court justices in Federal and all States. Wow. Look at how much money can be saved.
Clearly our ancestors were stupid. They did not understand all laws are complete - need no interpretation for extenuating circumstances and other variations. Clearly we have Congressmen so well endowed with brain power as to have thought all this out well in advance. And since people are so smart, then scientists need not do any experiments – they also have made all necessary predictions in advance. Well now we need not risk mankind in risky trips to the unknown - all is predicatable. We even know when the elevator will fail. Clearly we know when the murder will strike. I did not realize we have people so smart.
Meanwhile we don't have a law that specifically defines a blow job as sex. That was someone's interpretation. Law does not list every action that is sex. Clearly grabbing his balls also constitutes sex. I wonder why Congress forgot to make that clear? After all, Congress can predict all possible circumstances. Or were they (as usual) grossly negligent?