I am not much educated in this particular issue, but I have to say the language of this blog post led me to doubt that the author is a credible source of information.
While what you say is the intent. In practice the Supreme Court has become another legislative branch. At times applying tortuous logic to achieve desired outcomes. Both parties have benefited from this at times, but the rule of law is the biggest loser.
I once believed this also.
I would take this view more seriously for any decision that is not the result of a 5-4 vote with the usual suspects on the usual sides.
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.
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:
It is not opaque bafflegab.
I find it quite surprising that there's people who still believe that. Certainly that's what the defined purpose of the court is, they very often decide things specifically contrary to what the law says.
Two cases I often bring up to show how partisan SCOTUS is are "King v. Burwell" and "Shelby County v. Holder". In both of these cases the argument for the majority opinion was that SCOTUS should act because congress won't. The interesting contrast between these two cases is that the decision in one favored the Democrats, and the other favored Republicans. They were decided largely along party lines with Roberts and Kennedy changing sides. But 7 out of the 9 justices completely reversed their logic for why they voted the way they did. In one case arguing they should leave it to congress to fix, and in the other arguing that they should act because congress won't.
Which law were they interpreting about two-sided markets? I’m curious what the law says about them, and tfa claims no such law exists.
"Thomas’s “two-sided market” claim is an invented rule, conjured specifically to aid American Express in its quest to extract maximum revenues from retailers. “I am not aware of any support for that view in antitrust law,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in a scathing dissent he read partially from the bench.
So, where is the law concerning two-sided markets? Here's why Breyer writes in his dissent:
"The majority disputes my characterization of merchant-related and shopper-related services as “complements.” See ante, at 14, n. 8. The majority relies on an academic article which devotes one sentence to the question, saying that “a two-sided market [is] different from markets for complementary products [e.g., tires and gas], in which both products are bought by the same buyers, who, in their buying decisions, can therefore be expected to take into account both prices.” Filistrucchi, Geradin, Van Damme, & Affeldt, Market Definition in Two-Sided Markets: Theory and Practice, 10 J. Competition L. & Econ. 293, 297 (2014) (Filistrucchi). I agree that two-sided platforms—at least as some academics define them, but see infra, at 19–20—may be distinct from some types of complements in the respect the majority mentions (even though the services resemble complements because they must be used together for either to have value). But the distinction the majority mentions has nothing to do with the relevant question. The relevant question is whether merchant-related and shopper-related services are substitutes, one for the other, so that customers can respond to a price increase for one service by switching to the other service.
The "infra" is:
> What about the academic articles the majority cites? The first thing to note is that the majority defines “two-sided transaction platforms” much more broadly than the economists do. As the economists who coined the term explain, if a “two-sided market” meant simply that a firm connects two different groups of customers via a platform, then “pretty much any market would be two-sided, since buyers and sellers need to be brought together for markets to exist and gains from trade to be realized.” Rochet & Tirole, Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report, 37 RAND J. Econ. 645, 646 (2006). The defining feature of a “two-sided market,” according to these economists, is that “the platform can affect the volume of transactions by charging more to one side of the market and reducing the price paid by the other side by an equal amount.” Id., at 664–665; accord, Filistrucchi 299. That requirement appears nowhere in the majority’s definition. By failing to limit its definition to platforms that economists would recognize as “two sided” in the relevant respect, the majority carves out a much broader exception to the ordinary antitrust rules than the academic articles it relies on could possibly support."
Breyer ends:
"For the reasons I have explained, the majority’s decision in this case is contrary to basic principles of antitrust law, and it ignores and contradicts the District Court’s detailed factual findings, which were based on an extensive trial record."
This is in accord with the article.
So, why do you think the Supreme Court "just" interpreted the law?
What is the source of your incredulity?
Why should we think you - someone with "not much educat[ion]" in this topic - are credible? Why do you think your opinion is interesting enough to want to share?