http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/robert-bork-whose-failed-us-supreme-court-nomination-made-history-dies-at-85/article6553843/
Since I can assume Seedy won't post this news...
RIP. Had he been the nominee, we would now be discussing who Obama could appoint to secure a democratic controlled USSC. :cry:
RIP :(
Take it somewhere else, Meri.
Quote from: derspiess on December 19, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
RIP :(
Take it somewhere else, Meri.
Apologies. But I did say that I was sorry for those who will miss him. :sleep:
He's segregating angels now.
The Globe & Mail article mentions only as an aside what was easily his most significant contribution: his 1978 book The Antitrust Paradox. Modern competition law in the US and beyond has been profoundly influenced by that book, beginning with US Supreme Court decisions that radically altered legal doctrine, and followed by changes in the US DOJ and FTC analytical guidelines which incorporated a lot of Borks ideas, and have since spread to have some influence on the Directorate General for Competition in Europe.
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2012, 10:36:05 AM
Since I can assume Seedy won't post this news...
Eat me. I was busy this AM.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 19, 2012, 12:29:25 PM
The Globe & Mail article mentions only as an aside what was easily his most significant contribution: his 1978 book The Antitrust Paradox. Modern competition law in the US and beyond has been profoundly influenced by that book, beginning with US Supreme Court decisions that radically altered legal doctrine, and followed by changes in the US DOJ and FTC analytical guidelines which incorporated a lot of Borks ideas, and have since spread to have some influence on the Directorate General for Competition in Europe.
Influenced them in what way? What changed?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2012, 04:56:30 PM
Influenced them in what way? What changed?
More explicit use of economic theory; much greater emphasis on consumer impact (as opposed to impact on competing businesses).
My IO professor at Kennedy came in one day bubbling that federal judges were now accepting consumer surplus as a legitimate argument in antitrust cases, but that was in 90 or 91.
Is that a reasonable timeframe Joan?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2012, 05:13:32 PM
My IO professor at Kennedy came in one day bubbling that federal judges were now accepting consumer surplus as a legitimate argument in antitrust cases, but that was in 90 or 91.
Is that a reasonable timeframe Joan?
In that time frame, probably would have been the ARCO Supreme Court case, which threw out a competitor challenge to vertical maximum price fixing scheme on the ground that no consumer injury was alleged.
That was only one in a series of cases from the late 70s into the late 90s - as usually happens in the law, change comes gradually as cases move through the system.
bork bork bork
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2012, 01:16:24 PM
bork bork bork
And Swedes try to say that the Swedish Chef doesn't sound Swedish. :rolleyes: