I believe that this statement is historically questionable and totally-wrong from a going-forward policy perspective as it ignores the political aspect — the concentration of power, period — anti-trust law seeks to prevent.

Can I prove it by reference to the documents? Not any longer; I am an amateur at this. But I took anti-trust from a well-respected practitioner and I remember being struck at how successful Bork et al had been in de-fanging (and I believe) distorting anti-trust into a very narrow focus of “consumer welfare,” not even “consumer welfare” writ large.

You cannot separate economic and political power.

Y’all ought to just love the Warren Court, right? I mean, if the people disagree, they can just “fix” it through the Amendment process! It’s the Court’s place to make policy as it pleases, right? If the people disagree with the Court’s policy-making judgments, why, they can just overturn ‘em!

If that’s judicial conservatism, then the KC Royals are a great baseball team.

I love the hilariously obtuse reasoning above about why the 1975 CGPA doesn’t make this a simple open & shut case. Thom writes: “In repealing the Act, the 1975 Congress again subjected RPM to antitrust scrutiny, but it did not mandate a particular standard to govern such scrutiny.”

Sure, true, but Congress “subjected RPM to antitrust scrutiny” under the well-known 60+ year-old standard of per se illegality under Dr Miles. Nice try, but come again.

Your efforts to defend the hacktackular judicial activism & policymaking of the conservative 5 is deeply, deeply unconvincing.

Totally overshadowed by the race-based cases yesterday was another minor victory at the Supreme Court, in the case of Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, No. 06-480 (Jun……