Centerfield

Perhaps the next time you invite political refugees from absurd laws in Flyover Country to come and take refuge in Massachusetts, you should label the post "come out of that frying pan, it's much warmer in this here fire." ;)

ROTFL! It just goes to show, it's all a gamble, right? I mean, if you're a pregnant abortion-seeking lesbian engaged to a woman that smokes, what are you to DO? Where do you live?

My advice is to quit smoking, move here to get married, and get yourself a nice Boston Bruins license plate to help blend in.

I guess they just felt in their gut it's the right thing to do, regardless of the letter of the law...

...

I'm sorry, Brian, I couldn't resist a cheap shot. Console yourself that you have helped me make it through a thoroughly aggravating day!

By the way, Brian, I think the answer to your question is "San Francisco"...

Perfectly fine, Pat. expected even. I knew when I posted it that such a story made it a bad day to argue my side of that debate. Since I think judges should take such power on rare occasions, I have to be willing to accept it. And I do, even while I hope for recourse. So long as such decisions on culpability continue to be made primarily in the venue of civil trials, I prefer a jury to have most of the decision-making power.

But let's face it, the defense the cigcorps are losing out on isn't an especially glorious one. It might be ok in court, but I wouldn't want to be the PM exec or lawyer standing before the judge whose fist grips the trap door on the FINAL judgement day. Not when my defense is "well, yeah, I knew that selling cigarettes would lead to many ugly painful deaths, but I didn't force anyone to actual smoke them."

What is next, suing McDonalds for french fries? There is no safe way to eat french fries, but there are safe ways to consume potatoes. Alcohol is an obvious choice, think of all those brain and liver cells dying because of the greed of Miller Brewing!
What else could you expect from the same clowns that gave us gay marriage? They don't think through the results of their decisions, the impact on little economic issues like Social Security, health insurance, and income taxes.
I thought that Marbury vs. Madison was THE case all law students start with. Marshall did not rule the way he did because it was right, but because he knew any other decision would be ignored, and destroy the legal system in this country before it even started!
I think the SJC in Massachusetts has lost their foresight, their sense of history, and quite possibly their minds. I guess we will need a constitutional convention soon to fix some of these decisions, before we have an influx of lung cancer patients, and people suffering coronary atery disease from Micky Dee's fries. I just hope our next Governor will do his or her best to rein in this madness before it overwhelms us.