3 ms·
Saying that the 'Supreme Court is just interpreting the law' is a bad way of excusing some of the more terrible decisions they've handed down over the past few
by fzeroracer 8y ago
Saying that the 'Supreme Court is just interpreting the law' is a bad way of excusing some of the more terrible decisions they've handed down over the past few months.
With this particular case though most of the lawyers and law podcasts I follow haven't touched upon it so I can't say I'm particularly knowledgeable about it either. However I would say it's fair to look at any decisions with extreme scrutiny going forward.
- 3131s 8y agoWhat I understood as the significance of this ruling is that it establishes a different precedent for companies that are considered to participate in "two-sided markets" in relation to anti-trust law. I would be curious to hear some commentary on the interview below that discusses this ruling, maybe it would have made for a better submission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovqjj_hNAYw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovqjj_hNAYw
- eesmith 8y agoYou can also read Breyer's dissent, at PDF p25 (as the PDF counts it) of the decision, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1454diff_6579.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1454diff_6579... . It is not opaque bafflegab.