2 edits | SC overruled the notorious anti-"big business" 9th Circuit This wasn't very surprising. The 9th Circuit Federal Court in San Francisco leans way left and is often overruled by the Supreme Court. Even the left wing Supreme Court justices sided with AT&T on this one since the decision was unanimous. The 9th Circuit Court obviously decided to CREATE new law in this case and was slapped down by the Supremes.
»tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090225/···ntitrust
The plaintiffs in the case have "tried to join a wholesale claim that cannot succeed, with a retail claim that cannot succeed, and alchemize them into a new form of antitrust liability never before recognized by this court," Roberts said.
“If both the wholesale price and the retail price are independently lawful, there is no basis for imposing antitrust liability simply because a vertically integrated firm’s wholesale price happens to be greater than or equal to its retail price,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
"We decline the invitation to recognize such claims. Two wrong claims do not make one that is right," he wrote.
The court left open the possibility that the companies suing the AT&T unit could refashion their complaint using a different legal theory, known as predatory pricing, although a majority of justices suggested skepticism.
The ruling was the latest in a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that have generally made it harder to bring antitrust lawsuits. --
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 BitPremium
join:2009-02-19
00000
2 edits | The 9th circus is overturned the most in number but that is because they see the most cases. As a percentage of reversals they run about average over the last 5 or 6 years. True though in 1996-1997, they were blown out with a 95% reversal rate compared to the 71% average for other circuits and that is when they got their real notoriety as being 'constantly overturned'. |
|
|
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:This wasn't very surprising. The 9th Circuit Federal Court in San Francisco leans way left and is often overruled by the Supreme Court. Even the left wing Supreme Court justices sided with AT&T on this one since the decision was unanimous. The 9th Circuit Court obviously decided to CREATE new law in this case and was slapped down by the Supremes. » tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090225/···ntitrustThe plaintiffs in the case have "tried to join a wholesale claim that cannot succeed, with a retail claim that cannot succeed, and alchemize them into a new form of antitrust liability never before recognized by this court," Roberts said.
“If both the wholesale price and the retail price are independently lawful, there is no basis for imposing antitrust liability simply because a vertically integrated firm’s wholesale price happens to be greater than or equal to its retail price,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
"We decline the invitation to recognize such claims. Two wrong claims do not make one that is right," he wrote.
The court left open the possibility that the companies suing the AT&T unit could refashion their complaint using a different legal theory, known as predatory pricing, although a majority of justices suggested skepticism.
The ruling was the latest in a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that have generally made it harder to bring antitrust lawsuits. It's simply a Bush-appointed, crooked head of SC speaking here - these are the leftover minefield by the former Retard-in-Chief Dubya that 'bama has to navigate through in the comng years.
One can only hope that as more judges will retire O gets his shot to rebalance the bench ASAP (it's already way too bad that it's nothing but a joke with its unremovable judges.)
--
said by bicker:Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by kamm:It's simply a Bush-appointed, crooked head of SC speaking here... You can prove that Chief Justice John Roberts is crooked? Or are you just assuming so because of your pre-concieved notions of "right and wrong".
... - these are the leftover minefield by the former Retard-in-Chief Dubya that 'bama has to navigate through in the comng years.
He only succeeded in two appointments to SCOTUS; and the Dems dug in their heels for so long it seemed like he'd never get an appointment.
One can only hope that as more judges will retire O gets his shot to rebalance the bench ASAP (it's already way too bad that it's nothing but a joke with its unremovable judges.)
Obama hates the U.S. Constitution. He calls it a "negative document" for its limitations on federal government powers. I'd be very suspicious of his appointments to SCOTUS.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
