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.
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
Well that was certainly Scalia's opinion of Thomas.
A test I have for any article about the Court or its Justices is a really simple one: if the article does link to the Opinion, it’s pushing an agenda or a narrative. Once you do this you’ll probably discover that well over half of the articles about the Supreme Court are not worth reading.
I googled this because it seemed interesting.
The first two articles I looked up emphasize how little influence she had on anti-trust cases. At her hearing she said "Antitrust … is not my strong suit." It seems like she went along with other more experienced judges in this area such as Scalia or Breyer who is noted for being very business-friendly.
Where is your idea that Ginsburg was the lynchpin for weak anti-trust rulings coming from?
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.
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."