Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: thoughtomator

"An unenforceable, unauthorized judicial decision is still an abomination regardless of whether the intent is good or not."

First, the decision is not unauthorized, it was authorized by the presiding judge. Second, are you saying that, having been told, no sex, if the girl is found to have had sex that action against her is unenforceable? Appears to me she would be charged..probation revoked, etc., thereby making it 'enforceable'


79 posted on 09/30/2005 8:53:32 AM PDT by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: InsureAmerica; FarmerW

They can't even stop people in jail from having sex - they're going to stop an amoral 17-year-old? It's not realistic.

Moreover, I don't think there is any statute authorizing a judge to impose "no sex" conditions. Furthermore, the courts themselves have clearly stated that legislatures cannot legislate in that manner (Lawrence v. Texas). So if Congress is not authorized to pass such a law, then a judge is not authorized to impose that condition.


85 posted on 09/30/2005 9:35:33 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Aren't the "reality-based community" folks the same ones who insist there is no objective reality?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson