Quote: 

 

 I doubt that anyone threatening the husband of a female President would get off on a technicality because of the way the law's written. If this Supreme Court has shown us anything lately, it's that it's more than happy to set precedents based upon the interpretation of a law rather than the text.

 

 

I thought that was a stupid point to make as well. If a woman is ever elected a President they'll rewrite that law. And if it came down to brass tacks and it wasn't but the female Pres's husband was threatened I don't think someone will point to a law and say, "But it's not written!" Then again, they might. 

 

As for the rest of what you said, apparently we don't mind employing people to do that very thing. It's not like the money could be used for more important things. 

---