Liberty and Freedom
I got an idea...
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?
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?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Cindy Frasure on -
Probably not.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Arnett on -
Cindy,.. where were you yesterday. Boy, am I in big trouble! LOL.
Cindy Frasure said:Probably not.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Arnett on
-
Good to have you back, bud.
Bruce Wheatley said:Matt? No address to send flowers?
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony Dugal on -
Matt, I also could've told you your wife would not go for this. I've found full-disclosure is often NOT the best policy in certain marital matters. (Just kidding...in case my wife reads this!). Tony
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Fowler on -
Sorry it took me so long to respond back to your replies. I had to find another computer as I lost availability to the one I used to have at my home. The Supreme Court, I learned, is not always right.
Matt
-
Permalink Reply by Brad on -
government's philosophy: I'll follow the rules when they are convenient and benefit me / If not, I'll ignore them.
just more of the same. This philosophy is not good for government and even worse in marriage.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Arnett on
-
Good point Brad. Buy the way, do you know anything about remodeling a dog house?
Thanks Matt! LOL.
Brad said:government's philosophy: I'll follow the rules when they are convenient and benefit me / If not, I'll ignore them.
just more of the same. This philosophy is not good for government and even worse in marriage.
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Fowler on
-
Hey--I think Gov. Sanford of SC is trying this logic. Maybe it will work for him.
Matt
© 2013 Created by Gene Clem.
Powered by
