I don't know the details. As someone who was appalled reading some of the cases throughout law school, my $0.02 is: Sometimes the Court knows what result it wants, and will twist and contort however it needs to get to that conclusion. When I combine this with taking Matt Stoller at his word when he says the worm has turned re: anti-trust…
I don't know the details. As someone who was appalled reading some of the cases throughout law school, my $0.02 is: Sometimes the Court knows what result it wants, and will twist and contort however it needs to get to that conclusion. When I combine this with taking Matt Stoller at his word when he says the worm has turned re: anti-trust litigation, I would foresee the Court making its contortions to make the agenda happen.
As a practicing attorney, I believe you are entirely correct accept I would substitute the word "oftentimes" for "Sometimes". Having practiced before Judge Young before, I had thought him predisposed to see the heavy handed regulator as overstepping its mandate by picking winning businesses as opposed to simply preventing monopoly power. I read the man wrong.
I don't know the details. As someone who was appalled reading some of the cases throughout law school, my $0.02 is: Sometimes the Court knows what result it wants, and will twist and contort however it needs to get to that conclusion. When I combine this with taking Matt Stoller at his word when he says the worm has turned re: anti-trust litigation, I would foresee the Court making its contortions to make the agenda happen.
As a practicing attorney, I believe you are entirely correct accept I would substitute the word "oftentimes" for "Sometimes". Having practiced before Judge Young before, I had thought him predisposed to see the heavy handed regulator as overstepping its mandate by picking winning businesses as opposed to simply preventing monopoly power. I read the man wrong.