4 ms·

One of the conservative's legal project over the past 50 years main goals has been to maintain a Borkian consumer harm standard for anti-trust. With the current

by xxpor 4y ago

One of the conservative's legal project over the past 50 years main goals has been to maintain a Borkian consumer harm standard for anti-trust. With the current SCOTUS, I don't see much of a realistic path for this.

debacle 4y ago
This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. This is a corporatism issue.
- xxpor 4y ago
  Agreed on the general point, but it's undeniable that corporatism has used conservative politics as the means to the end they desire. See also: every culture war, the fact that the only thing Republicans can agree on are court appointees and tax cuts.
  - debacle 4y ago
    I don't think you understand the US political system in a nuanced or realistic fashion.
    - decremental 4y ago
      This could be an accurate auto-response to just about any comment on these types of threads.
    - xxpor 4y ago
      This is impossible to respond to without a point to argue against. IM-not-so-HO, I have fantastic understanding of the political system.
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  Right, and the current court is unusually pro-corporate: https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-business https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-.... And although it's not necessarily a liberal vs. conservative issue, it would be deceptive not to point out that this is entirely because of the Republican justices.
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    The current court was preceded by a far less conservative court which did precisely dick about the problem for decades. Stop trying to frame this as a party issue when this is a class issue -- and the bourgeoisie controls both sides of the aisle.
    - CobrastanJorji 4y ago
      I linked to a summary of a UVA paper evaluating the SC decisions of the last century or so and graphing them as pro or anti-corporatist, which concluded that the current court is the most pro-business ever. You have handwaved that it maybe used to be this bad. If you have some sort of basis for your belief, I would be happy to consider it.
      - EarlKing 4y ago
        The basis of my belief is the undeniable fact that prior courts didn't do a damn thing about it despite decades of opportunities. This simply isn't a partisan issue, no matter how much certain petit bourgeoisie-aligned persons would like to frame it otherwise. This is entirely about the uniparty protecting its class interest in ensuring monopolies are not confronted -- unless they pissed off the wrong party member, of course.
        CobrastanJorji 4y ago
        I would love to continue arguing, but alas, you say your point is undeniable, and thus, I cannot deny it. Curses, I am foiled by this one simple trick that policy debaters did not want you to know!
- Spivak 4y ago
  I think polarization on social issues has made people forget that the conservative position / the liberal position isn't always a world ending flamewar. Taking the position that market intervention isn't needed until consumer harm can be sufficiently demonstrated vs. market intervention is needed when any firm wields monopolistic power is a discussion about the role of government and what produces the best outcomes, not "look this side bad."
- danaris 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    So which side do Republicans fall on Section 230? For large corps?
  - olivermarks 4y ago
    Google is a global company with huge EU antitrust issues as well as the advertising monopoly dispute in the US which is more of a rival corporations issue than a political one. They are now looking too big to succeed...
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  [flagged]
starwind 4y ago
Bork argued that antitrust law shouldn't inherently challenge bigness. He felt that the antitrust should seek to maximize consumer welfare. That's been interpreted by the courts to mean lower prices, but any economist worth their salt will say consumer choice is an aspect of consumer welfare. It doesn't matter if Little Caesars pizza is the cheapest option, if there aren't any other pizza options, consumer welfare is severely negatively impacted because some consumers won't like Little Caesars. Ruth Bader Ginsburg—despite being lionized by liberals—was an extremely pro-business justice who played a strong role in the Supreme Court siding with businesses in all but one antitrust case from 1995ish on. With her gone, I think this case may actually have a chance
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Thomas does seem at least open to having the discussion, and has mentioned social media market position in previous opinions.
  - rodgerd 4y ago
    The cynic in me says that Thomas is open to the discussion to the extent that it hurts companies that he percieves as his enemies, and will shut it down as soon as it covers companies that he considers on his side.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      That would stand out among SC justices as abnormal, they're usually only biased when it can be consistent, which covers most cases but doesn't go so far as applying different law to different companies.
      - rodgerd 4y ago
        > That would stand out among SC justices as abnormal Well that was certainly Scalia's opinion of Thomas.
    - remarkEon 4y ago

by xxpor 4y ago

debacle 4y ago

This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. This is a corporatism issue.

xxpor 4y ago
Agreed on the general point, but it's undeniable that corporatism has used conservative politics as the means to the end they desire. See also: every culture war, the fact that the only thing Republicans can agree on are court appointees and tax cuts.
- debacle 4y ago
  I don't think you understand the US political system in a nuanced or realistic fashion.
  - decremental 4y ago
    This could be an accurate auto-response to just about any comment on these types of threads.
  - xxpor 4y ago
    This is impossible to respond to without a point to argue against. IM-not-so-HO, I have fantastic understanding of the political system.
CobrastanJorji 4y ago
Right, and the current court is unusually pro-corporate: https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-business https://www.axios.com/2022/08/04/supreme-court-john-roberts-.... And although it's not necessarily a liberal vs. conservative issue, it would be deceptive not to point out that this is entirely because of the Republican justices.
- EarlKing 4y ago
  The current court was preceded by a far less conservative court which did precisely dick about the problem for decades. Stop trying to frame this as a party issue when this is a class issue -- and the bourgeoisie controls both sides of the aisle.
  - CobrastanJorji 4y ago
    I linked to a summary of a UVA paper evaluating the SC decisions of the last century or so and graphing them as pro or anti-corporatist, which concluded that the current court is the most pro-business ever. You have handwaved that it maybe used to be this bad. If you have some sort of basis for your belief, I would be happy to consider it.
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      The basis of my belief is the undeniable fact that prior courts didn't do a damn thing about it despite decades of opportunities. This simply isn't a partisan issue, no matter how much certain petit bourgeoisie-aligned persons would like to frame it otherwise. This is entirely about the uniparty protecting its class interest in ensuring monopolies are not confronted -- unless they pissed off the wrong party member, of course.
      - CobrastanJorji 4y ago
        I would love to continue arguing, but alas, you say your point is undeniable, and thus, I cannot deny it. Curses, I am foiled by this one simple trick that policy debaters did not want you to know!
Spivak 4y ago
I think polarization on social issues has made people forget that the conservative position / the liberal position isn't always a world ending flamewar. Taking the position that market intervention isn't needed until consumer harm can be sufficiently demonstrated vs. market intervention is needed when any firm wields monopolistic power is a discussion about the role of government and what produces the best outcomes, not "look this side bad."
danaris 4y ago
[flagged]
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  So which side do Republicans fall on Section 230? For large corps?
- olivermarks 4y ago
  Google is a global company with huge EU antitrust issues as well as the advertising monopoly dispute in the US which is more of a rival corporations issue than a political one. They are now looking too big to succeed...
bobkazamakis 4y ago
[flagged]

starwind 4y ago

Bork argued that antitrust law shouldn't inherently challenge bigness. He felt that the antitrust should seek to maximize consumer welfare. That's been interpreted by the courts to mean lower prices, but any economist worth their salt will say consumer choice is an aspect of consumer welfare. It doesn't matter if Little Caesars pizza is the cheapest option, if there aren't any other pizza options, consumer welfare is severely negatively impacted because some consumers won't like Little Caesars. Ruth Bader Ginsburg—despite being lionized by liberals—was an extremely pro-business justice who played a strong role in the Supreme Court siding with businesses in all but one antitrust case from 1995ish on. With her gone, I think this case may actually have a chance

remarkEon 4y ago
Thomas does seem at least open to having the discussion, and has mentioned social media market position in previous opinions.
- rodgerd 4y ago
  The cynic in me says that Thomas is open to the discussion to the extent that it hurts companies that he percieves as his enemies, and will shut it down as soon as it covers companies that he considers on his side.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    That would stand out among SC justices as abnormal, they're usually only biased when it can be consistent, which covers most cases but doesn't go so far as applying different law to different companies.
    - rodgerd 4y ago
      > That would stand out among SC justices as abnormal Well that was certainly Scalia's opinion of Thomas.
  - remarkEon 4y ago