I got an idea…
I was reasoning the current Supreme Court decision concerning the secured bondholders of Chrysler as held by Indiana fireman and teacher Unions’ pension funds. These unions claimed, that as attained creditors, they have precedence over the defense of unsecured principles even though these unsecured holders may be other fellow union brethren. Our Government administration argued that the workers union (UAW) should have first priority for their pension funds--even though they are unsecured, to save jobs.
The Supreme Court, over a 48-hour period, said that the current Federal Government (Obama) had a right, for this case only, to do what it pleased and bypass the law of established bankrupt rulings. Also, the court said it was not making prudence or precedence for the meaning of the law as validated for this case. In other words, even though a decision was made for this instance—it should not set law or mean anything, what so ever, on precedence.
As it follows, I am going to talk to my wife on this Supreme Court non-ruling ruling as it relates to our marriage vows (contract) of faithfulness. I am going to tell her tomorrow that I am going to have an illicit affair but this will not set precedence or mean anything to our long-term stability of state established family law.
I think, if it’s good enough for the Supreme Court, it’s good enough for common citizen, me. – Do you think it will work?