Should this even be an issue?

Apparently, according to the Supreme Court, if someone consumes alcohol at my house, and then leaves and does something stupid, I can't be sued.

Good to know!

It's hard for me to blame the car-crash victim; someone who's been through that much can't really be faulted so easily for lashing out. But what's most irksome in that article is the representative of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who said that he (yeah, "he" is apparently a mother) is "a little disappointed" by the Supreme Court ruling.

Really? Now, is it just me, or is it a little disturbing that there are people, besides those who stood to benefit monetarily, who would be disappointed by a ruling whose justice and rationality ought to be self-evident?