Maud wrote:
> Now, I know we've been following a judicial path lately, but in this
> case we ought to pursue a legislative solution, even if only to make
> the rules clear.
There are many cases where a concise legislative solution is perferrable,
even in a "judicial" game. This is one of them.
In general, a judicial game (to me) is where we take away over-exact
mechanistic procedures and replace them with terms like "reasonable" or
"sufficient" or "severe" or "preponderance", or allow the rules to
contain and be interpreted meaningfully with respect to broad,
overarching philosophical principles ("rights" or "persons").
It has nothing to do with desiring impeneratable or self-conflicting
rules for the sole purpose of invoking judgement to unsnarl tangles,
when a rule change could easily clarify matters.
-Goethe
