3 ms·

I can't read the pdf because for some reason it flashes every second on whatever brave is using for pdf rendering. Do they discuss why states have standing to

by xxpor 6y ago

I can't read the pdf because for some reason it flashes every second on whatever brave is using for pdf rendering. Do they discuss why states have standing to sue for violations of the Sherman act? Maybe this is a common thing but states trying to enforce federal law in federal court seems strange.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> Maybe this is a common thing but states trying to enforce federal law in federal court seems strange Any inter-state action would be in federal court. Think about it for a minute ...
- xxpor 6y ago
  Sure, the question is more about "why can the states do this by themselves, without the DOJ signing on"
  - TT3351 6y ago
    The "why can they" I can't really address, but the "why do they" is interesting: state AGs (including TX, who brought the suit) are occasionally directly elected positions, and hence tend to feel more political pressure than the federal DoJ. Another comment on this page has brought up the idea of the Chickenshit Club; feds only bring cases they know they will win to burnish their personal careers.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      > the idea of the Chickenshit Club It's actually true. There's a letter that was circulated to major companies to not fund legal cases for executives vs. the DOJ, and the SEC generally won't prosecute well-funded plaintiffs, or really any case they're not 100% sure about. An example of the failure of the DOJ was against Countrywide. The owner had around $1 billion to fight the DOJ and wasn't convicted, with just a patsy getting the guilty plea. One of their regulatory capture techniques was to offer Representatives mortgages at lower rates than the public: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/23/bank-of-america-countrywide-guilty-fraud https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/23/bank-of-ame...
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    Each state has a States Attorney. I don't follow why the DOJ would need to "sign on." They're basically arguing that changing election rules fundamentally changes what a vote means. Most of the election-related lawsuits have been rejected for standing, but note that they can be refiled, and if done on by Trump himself they would have standing. Since I'm posting at the moment, you can expect martial law to be imposed shortly. Trump is going through the expected legal motions, but that's only for optics. If you watch the various NTD channels, Trump has more than enough examples as justification. (If you've only been watching CNN and MSNBC, you haven't seen how badly-conducted the election was.)
jerbs 6y ago
It's fairly common in antitrust. Section 16 of the Clayton Act [1] gives states power to bring federal antitrust suits on behalf of their residents, and states will often bring both federal antitrust claims and state antitrust/unfair and deceptive trade practices claims in the same suit, as the states here are doing. Incidentally, if you're interested in the surprisingly expansive role of state attorneys general, the National Association of Attorneys General has published a fascinating (though pricy) book that goes into the common powers of state AGs in more detail than anybody would want.[2] The website for James Tierney's State AGs course at Columbia also has a lot of interesting readings.[3] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15c https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15c [2] https://www.naag.org/publication/state-attorneys-general-powers-and-responsibilities/ https://www.naag.org/publication/state-attorneys-general-pow... [3] https://www.stateag.org/syllabus-2020 https://www.stateag.org/syllabus-2020
- xxpor 6y ago
  >Section 16 of the Clayton Act [1] gives states power to bring federal antitrust suits on behalf of their residents I think this is the key point I was looking for. There's a specific grant of authority here.

by xxpor 6y ago

redis_mlc 6y ago

> Maybe this is a common thing but states trying to enforce federal law in federal court seems strange Any inter-state action would be in federal court. Think about it for a minute ...

xxpor 6y ago
Sure, the question is more about "why can the states do this by themselves, without the DOJ signing on"
- TT3351 6y ago
  The "why can they" I can't really address, but the "why do they" is interesting: state AGs (including TX, who brought the suit) are occasionally directly elected positions, and hence tend to feel more political pressure than the federal DoJ. Another comment on this page has brought up the idea of the Chickenshit Club; feds only bring cases they know they will win to burnish their personal careers.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > the idea of the Chickenshit Club It's actually true. There's a letter that was circulated to major companies to not fund legal cases for executives vs. the DOJ, and the SEC generally won't prosecute well-funded plaintiffs, or really any case they're not 100% sure about. An example of the failure of the DOJ was against Countrywide. The owner had around $1 billion to fight the DOJ and wasn't convicted, with just a patsy getting the guilty plea. One of their regulatory capture techniques was to offer Representatives mortgages at lower rates than the public: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/23/bank-of-america-countrywide-guilty-fraud https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/23/bank-of-ame...
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Each state has a States Attorney. I don't follow why the DOJ would need to "sign on." They're basically arguing that changing election rules fundamentally changes what a vote means. Most of the election-related lawsuits have been rejected for standing, but note that they can be refiled, and if done on by Trump himself they would have standing. Since I'm posting at the moment, you can expect martial law to be imposed shortly. Trump is going through the expected legal motions, but that's only for optics. If you watch the various NTD channels, Trump has more than enough examples as justification. (If you've only been watching CNN and MSNBC, you haven't seen how badly-conducted the election was.)

jerbs 6y ago

It's fairly common in antitrust. Section 16 of the Clayton Act [1] gives states power to bring federal antitrust suits on behalf of their residents, and states will often bring both federal antitrust claims and state antitrust/unfair and deceptive trade practices claims in the same suit, as the states here are doing. Incidentally, if you're interested in the surprisingly expansive role of state attorneys general, the National Association of Attorneys General has published a fascinating (though pricy) book that goes into the common powers of state AGs in more detail than anybody would want.[2] The website for James Tierney's State AGs course at Columbia also has a lot of interesting readings.[3] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15c https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15c [2] https://www.naag.org/publication/state-attorneys-general-powers-and-responsibilities/ https://www.naag.org/publication/state-attorneys-general-pow... [3] https://www.stateag.org/syllabus-2020 https://www.stateag.org/syllabus-2020

xxpor 6y ago
>Section 16 of the Clayton Act [1] gives states power to bring federal antitrust suits on behalf of their residents I think this is the key point I was looking for. There's a specific grant of authority here.