Time off for good behavior
The biggest case of note out of the Ohio Supreme Court this week was an affirmance of the 5th District's decision last year holding that Ohio could constitutionally punish consensual sex between a stepparent and an adult stepchild, in State v. Woody Allen, oops, State v. Lowe. I'd done a post on the case when it was argued before the Court back in October, noting that a reversal was, um, unlikely; my exact words were that "there’s as much chance of our Supreme Court putting its stamp of approval on stepparents messing around with their stepchildren, even adult ones, as there is of the state legislature designating August as Oral Sex Month."
Turns out I was right on the money as to not only the outcome, but the Court's reasoning. I'd suggested that the only reason the court took the case was to clean up the appellate court's decision, which had spent a lot of time talking about there not being a right to consensual sex, even with an adult stepdaughter -- a rationale that might run afoul of the US Supreme Court's holding in Lawrence v. Texas that there's a liberty interest in consensual adult sexual relations. I'd suggested that the Supreme Court would instead focus on the state interest of preserving the family unit in prohibiting stepparent/stepchild relations, and in their 6-1 decision the other day, that's exactly what they did.
So I guess I'll have to type the rest of this post with one hand, having broken my other arm patting myself on the back. Hey, this is the guy who said there was no way Al Gore would lose Tennessee in the 2000 election, and that the Pittsburgh Steelers were a lock to repeat as Super Bowl champions, so pardon me while I revel in the rarity about having been right about something.
And I'm going to reward myself for this by taking the rest of the day off from writing serious stuff. We'll start by saluting the law firm of Low, Ball & Lynch. No, I'm not making that up; the firm's site can be found here. They do insurance defense work. Quelle surprise. I don't want to even think about what Payne & Fears, LLP specialize in.
If they specialize in trial work, they'd best be clean-shaven, at least according to the jury consultant who was interviewed for this article. While no facial hair is best of all, if you're unwilling to dispense with it altogether, keep in mind there's a heirarchy at work: beards are best, mustaches are in the middle, and "goatees are most likely to discredit a lawyer." Actually, the best part of the article was the comments below it, particularly this one:
In his later made for TV movies in he late 80’s and early ’90s, Raymond Burr as Perry Mason had a Beard/VanDyke thing going and he remained undefeated. But that might also have had something to do with his opposing prosecutors seeming never to have heard of the phrase, “I object!”, when he would accuse somebody of the heinous crime while they were on the witness stand.
Oh, and speaking of Al Gore, which we were several paragraphs back, it appears he's suffered yet another blow at the hands of the Supreme Court.
I'm going to be on vacation next week, so I'll put some stuff together over the weekend to keep you minimally entertained/informed while I'm gone. I'll be back, tanned, rested, and ready, a week from Monday.
Comments