The Supreme Court of the United States acquits Ross in an unappealable way in his verdict, made public this afternoon, in relation to the alleged infidelity of the young man while he was “on a break” or “in the middle of a fight” with Rachel.
https://youtu.be/LxRZWhowERw
The 9 judges that make up the current Supreme Court uphold in their writing that “the de facto interruption of the couple’s life as such can and should be interpreted as a potentially definitive pause that gave legitimacy to both parties to explore other affective, temporary or definitive relationship.”
The Court acknowledges, of course, that the decision to have relations with Chloe or “the hot girl from the Xerox place” may be subject to lawful reproach by Rachel, but does not incur infidelity in any case.”
The sentence constitutes a hard blow to the accuser and, far from resolving the controversy as it was intended, has led Rachel’s defenders to question the objectivity of the United States Supreme Court, accusing the judges of virility and slumping into a simplistic analysis that does not contemplate the subtleties inherent in a relationship between two people, which go beyond the verbal agreements that are ratified at times even during tension or anger.
The decision of the SCOTUS is final and the request for a referral is only accepted “if the matter raises a serious question regarding the interpretation or application of the Declaration of Independence or a serious matter of a general nature,” according to the stipulation of the High Court itself. Hence, what this great court of judges has enacted are future procedures of “rest, respite or request for space” in the framework of sentimental relationships.
This sentence impels Rachel to reinstate herself with Ross within a pivot of two months.
