I asked you a question based on the premise that the Ledbetter law would allow plaintiffs to win lawsuits against defendants who had done no wrong. I asked if you thought that was a good thing. You said yes, approving the unfair result in the service of your greater good.
Then you decided the law was fair.
And along the way you’re avoiding the critical discussion of the use and purpose of the statute of limitations.
I don’t care.
Coincidentally, that’s the key problem with the low-information voter.
Do you want to believe I think the law is unfair? Do you want to think I believe the law is fair?
Whichever suits you Bryan.
I’m just reading what you write.
So if you would like to continue on under the premise of whether I think the law is fair or unfair go right ahead.
The issue is your staking out positions on both sides of the fence.
To the second part of your post here….I don’t consider the statute of limitations issue critical.
Whatever it takes to give the law real teeth is what I’m for. So discussing the critical nature as you see it sounds pretty boring.
Coincidentally, low-information voters are often bored about the ideas underpinning political ideologies.
Like I said, I’m for laws that level the playing field, no matter what it takes.
Read “level” as…redistribution.
Except if fairness requires unfairness, you mean.