> She has lost her big cases! She is ineffective. That’s the metric which matters.
I posted this above, but I am going to repost it just to make sure the point is made (sorry if it feels like I am spamming).
From [1]
> You wouldn’t realize this success if you listen to the conventional wisdom in politics, because Wall Street is pushing a public narrative that antitrust agencies are losing in courts, and therefore they are losing their ability to stop deals. But this isn’t true, because if it were, you wouldn’t see regular reports from business publications lamenting the decline in deals, and writing things like “The average size of mergers completed is now at the lowest level in 20 years.” And you wouldn’t have deal-makers on CNBC calmly describing how hard it is to get mergers done.
So what you claimed as the only metric that matters isn't true, but why let facts get in the way of a good soapbox.
Also since you are an economist and clearly misinformed about how law works, let me add this bit of nuance. You cannot win cases when judges will deliberately misinterpret the law Congress passed. From [2]
> And yet, this epiphany, that markets are politically structured and don’t have a will of their own, hasn’t made it to one very important place: the judiciary. The same week Sullivan gave his speech, a panel of three D.C. Circuit Court judges struck down a monopolization case against Facebook on the grounds that markets self-correct. "Many innovations may seem anti-competitive at first but turn out to be the opposite,” wrote the panel, “and the market often corrects even those that are anti-competitive." The D.C. Circuit Court panel was bipartisan, and included Republican appointees Karen L. Henderson and Raymond Randolph, as well as Obama appointed judge Robert Wilkins.
> These words undermine Congressional statute, and may devastate the ability to use antitrust law against digital platforms, at least in the D.C. Circuit. The specific procedural question was on the right of state attorneys general to bring an antitrust case over a violation that happened years earlier, as Federal enforcers can. Three judges made a policy decision to disallow that, even as Congress had just passed a law a few months earlier to make it easier for states to participate in antitrust enforcement.
> In other words, the power of judges is massive, and judges openly and often thwart the will of Congress. And this power is not necessarily based on partisan or traditional ideological affiliations.
Deliberate or not, a large part of the judiciary has been brought up in an environment where mergers are good and markets will magically correct this otherwise. That obviously needs to change and will take more time. Also Biden nominating judges that worked to get mergers done doesn't really help.
I posted this above, but I am going to repost it just to make sure the point is made (sorry if it feels like I am spamming).
From [1] > You wouldn’t realize this success if you listen to the conventional wisdom in politics, because Wall Street is pushing a public narrative that antitrust agencies are losing in courts, and therefore they are losing their ability to stop deals. But this isn’t true, because if it were, you wouldn’t see regular reports from business publications lamenting the decline in deals, and writing things like “The average size of mergers completed is now at the lowest level in 20 years.” And you wouldn’t have deal-makers on CNBC calmly describing how hard it is to get mergers done.
So what you claimed as the only metric that matters isn't true, but why let facts get in the way of a good soapbox.
Also since you are an economist and clearly misinformed about how law works, let me add this bit of nuance. You cannot win cases when judges will deliberately misinterpret the law Congress passed. From [2]
> And yet, this epiphany, that markets are politically structured and don’t have a will of their own, hasn’t made it to one very important place: the judiciary. The same week Sullivan gave his speech, a panel of three D.C. Circuit Court judges struck down a monopolization case against Facebook on the grounds that markets self-correct. "Many innovations may seem anti-competitive at first but turn out to be the opposite,” wrote the panel, “and the market often corrects even those that are anti-competitive." The D.C. Circuit Court panel was bipartisan, and included Republican appointees Karen L. Henderson and Raymond Randolph, as well as Obama appointed judge Robert Wilkins.
> These words undermine Congressional statute, and may devastate the ability to use antitrust law against digital platforms, at least in the D.C. Circuit. The specific procedural question was on the right of state attorneys general to bring an antitrust case over a violation that happened years earlier, as Federal enforcers can. Three judges made a policy decision to disallow that, even as Congress had just passed a law a few months earlier to make it easier for states to participate in antitrust enforcement.
> In other words, the power of judges is massive, and judges openly and often thwart the will of Congress. And this power is not necessarily based on partisan or traditional ideological affiliations.
Deliberate or not, a large part of the judiciary has been brought up in an environment where mergers are good and markets will magically correct this otherwise. That obviously needs to change and will take more time. Also Biden nominating judges that worked to get mergers done doesn't really help.
[1] - https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/never-seen-anything-like-... [2] - https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/all-rise-how-judges-rule-...