The Court’s role is to interpret the law, not mete out (perceived) justice based on feelings. It’s not their fault that the law is the way it is, nor is it their duty to ignore what the law says to punish people, even if those people might deserve it.
The FTC statement makes a good point that Congress needs to pass a new law if they want to make something illegal, basically agreeing with the court without admitting it. The FTC can't just assume powers of their own accord. (though they certainly tried)
They were, but as Tentacle Monster pointed out there was judicial dispute over whether the FTC had the authority to specifically seek monetary relief for people.
Usury represents the industrialized devaluation of humanity; based on the suggestion of money as a substitute value for ONEs free will of choice to evaluate ALL existence.
What therefore would be an insignificant usurer? What are the implications of using free will to evaluate the mass devaluation of ones free will to evaluate?
The Court’s role is to interpret the law, not mete out (perceived) justice based on feelings. It’s not their fault that the law is the way it is, nor is it their duty to ignore what the law says to punish people, even if those people might deserve it.
ETA: The decision was unanimous, by the way.
The FTC statement makes a good point that Congress needs to pass a new law if they want to make something illegal, basically agreeing with the court without admitting it. The FTC can't just assume powers of their own accord. (though they certainly tried)
Can the laws of nature be changed? If not...are the ones within at fault for ignoring them?
It would be nice if people understood what the case was about instead of trying to make it a good guys v bad guys.
Truth versus false represents the conflict of reason; and it's based on consent to believe in any offer made (in this case; "the case")
To believe represents to restrict comprehension (understanding) of reality in favor for the offered fiction (believing/not believing in "the case").
They were, but as Tentacle Monster pointed out there was judicial dispute over whether the FTC had the authority to specifically seek monetary relief for people.
Usury represents the industrialized devaluation of humanity; based on the suggestion of money as a substitute value for ONEs free will of choice to evaluate ALL existence.
What therefore would be an insignificant usurer? What are the implications of using free will to evaluate the mass devaluation of ones free will to evaluate?