Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 10, 18:15
2: Dec 10, 12:28
3: Dec 10, 09:30
4: Dec 10, 05:59
5: Dec 9, 17:07
6: Dec 9, 13:47
7: Dec 9, 10:33
8: Dec 9, 07:33
9: Dec 8, 17:50
10: Dec 8, 10:32
11: Dec 8, 06:23
12: Dec 7, 16:52
13: Dec 7, 07:17
14: Dec 6, 14:40
15: Dec 6, 10:07
16: Dec 6, 07:32
17: Dec 5, 19:48
18: Dec 5, 12:51
19: Dec 5, 10:39
20: Dec 5, 07:07
Posts: 151
In response to
"
The other thing that the grant below tells you is that hoping for Elizabeth Warren to save us is a SAD joke. It's over
"
by
JackDawson
what is even the possible argument against? -- nm
Posted by
Reagen
Nov 1 '19, 13:35
(No message)
Responses:
The case against it is that it's being used as a punitive measure, rather than an equitable one to right the wrong
-
Roger More
Nov 1, 13:56
4
That’s the superficial argument - the crux is that the statute says we can get “injunction, penalties, and all other equitable relief the court seems
-
JackDawson
Nov 1, 14:31
But... we try to get money back from bank robbers, right? Drug dealers? -- nm
-
Reagen
Nov 1, 13:57
2
Then wouldn't those lawyers then try to extend that decision to their clients? -- nm
-
.
Nov 1, 16:38
Gleefully, if you’re a police force. -- nm
-
Roger More
Nov 1, 14:00
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
