Morning Docket 11.18.08
* Change you can believe in? It looks like Obama has recruited a few “washington insiders”: 8 of the 10 top lawyers he has hired for his transition team are veterans of the Clinton administration. [Bloomberg.com]
* After his hunt yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia told a room full of big-time Texas lawyers that he disagreed with judges who used foreign law to interpret the constitution. [Houston Chronicle]
* “Protesters galvanized by a dragging death that has stirred memories of the notorious James Byrd case rallied twice outside an eastern Texas courthouse to speak out against a judicial system they consider racist.” [Associated Press]
* Are you ready for your close-up Mr. Rehnquist? The Hoover institution released files documenting Rehnquist’s first three years on the Court, years filled with land-mark cases like Roe v. Wade and United States vs. Nixon. [New York Times]
* California Attorney general is pushing the Supreme Court to decide the legality of Prop. 8. The Court could begin to act as soon as Wednesday, when they have their weekly conference. [San Jose Mercury News]
* Say it ain’t so! Washington regulators have finally opened up the doors on Belgian-based beer company InBev’s acquisition of Anheuser Busch, which monopolizes
50% of the US beer market. The merger will make InBev the largest beer company in the world. [Courthouse News Service]
* Sorry Ohio…President-elect Obama is probably going to wait a while before overhauling NAFTA. [Bloomberg.com]
(45) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
LAST!
SECOND!
you are second to last. oye
'Change' only means a change from the Bush era.
Finally, new cock in the morning.
I really hope the auto industry burns. Seriously, who would have thought that unskilled line workers wouldn't be worth $80k/y + full health + pension + 30 and out (i.e. if you started working at 18, you'd have a fully vested pension at 48)?
6 - I'm conflicted. On the one hand, we have created a strong middle class with great benefits. It's so rare that workers anywhere, even in "office" settings, to have a good benefits package. I'd be sad to see this go and have no pensions and where every man is out for himself. on the other hand, the leaders of the auto industry made unsustainable business choices and the workers had no hand in the product mix decision and production decisions.
6 - I'm conflicted. On the one hand, we have created a strong middle class with great benefits. It's so rare that workers anywhere, even in "office" settings, to have a good benefits package. I'd be sad to see this go and have no pensions and where every man is out for himself. on the other hand, the leaders of the auto industry made unsustainable business choices and the workers had no hand in the product mix decision and production decisions.
6 - I'm conflicted. On the one hand, we have created a strong middle class with great benefits. It's so rare that workers anywhere, even in "office" settings, to have a good benefits package. I'd be sad to see this go and have no pensions and where every man is out for himself. on the other hand, the leaders of the auto industry made unsustainable business choices and the workers had no hand in the product mix decision and production decisions.
bush sucks
BEER!
bush + cock + beer in the morning = WTF?!
7, 8, 9 - What the hell is wrong with you? You're supposed to take an extreme position and support it unthinkingly in the face of any valid criticism or evidence to the contrary. Then yell "Bush Cock MysTTTal".
What the hell website do you think you're on??
"which monopolizes 50% of the US beer market."
Methinks you know very little about antitrust law.
So...let me get this straight- Scalia does not want to use foreign law to interpret the constitution but he will be ok using it if foreign law is used to interpret abortion cases because most other countries do not allow it.
What is the principal here? It is not right to use foreign law, but hey it is-if it suits me? Then that make sit ok?
I also love the "framers intention" argument he always falls back on to defend his positions. Ofcourse, the world goes on and centuries pass but the constitution cannot be a living document, it has to be applied to a changing world just as it was applied a couple of centuries plus ago.
What a db....
No mention of Yang or GM? This is a bit weak, no?
not weak like a big strong cock
"which monopolizes 50% of the US beer market."
In general, Eliza, 50% of a market is not considered a monopoly. While the Supreme Court has never set a minimum limit, the Supreme Court has consistently held that “market shares about 66% indicate monopoly power . . . .” See, e.g., EINER ELHAUGE AND DAMIEN GERADIN, GLOBAL ANTITRUST LAW AND ECONOMICS 267 (2007)(providing a list of cases to support this conclusion).
You might also want to check out the DOJ's most recent statement on Competition and Monopoly, which notes that firms in excess of two-thirds of a market will be presumed to have market power. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, COMPETITION AND MONOPOLY: SINGLE-FIRM CONDUCT UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT 23 (September 2008), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/reports/236681.pdf .
In other words, you're using a pretty loose definition of monopolize there. Or at least an uninformed one.
Perhaps InBev will have more than two-thirds of the beer market after it acquires Anheuser Busch, warranting more scrutiny by the DOJ. But when you talk about someone monopolizing the market with 50% market share, I cry.
no one said lawyers weren't fun at cocktail (or beer) parties.
change you can xerox!!!
18 - Are you retarded? I can "monopolize" 1% of a market if I own that one percent; it's mine ALL MINE. That doesn't mean I monopolize the ENTIRE market. It just means I dominate/own the percentage that is mine.
Dumbass.
15 = TTT
Scalia does not use foreign law to interpret abortion rights. Its comparative in that those countries that HAVE legalized abortion have done so through the legislature, NOT the Courts. That is the extent of foreign law Scalia uses for abortion.
And wow, is it that crazy that Scalia does not want to use foreign law to interpret the CON? Of course he doesn't.
Thanks for the headline MysTTTal. Maybe tomorrow we can have the headline "Justice Stevens disagrees with concept of Originalism!!"
oh schnaps! lawyers are getting testy!
this post wasn't written by Mystal.
qualified people in the administration would be a change.
24,
MysTTTal = editor in chief, so it was approved by him.
Seriously. A monkey in the White House is a welcome change from the Bush years.
24 -- Correct. It was written by Eliza Gray. We can all read the name under the title. Thanks!
holy shit, passive aggressive notes! yes!!!!!1!!!111!!
21 --
My apologies for confining myself to the definition of monopolization used by the Courts and by the Department of Justice. As far as I recall, "Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude competition.” United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391(1956).
You try to control prices or exclude competition with your 1% of the market and let me know how that goes. In fact, triple the price of your product and let me know how long it takes for a competitor to take your market share.
Dumbass.
-- 18
21 - yes, 18 is a dumbass for not noticing that distinction. At the same time, Eliza Grey is a dumbass for making a statement that has no substantive meaning in the context that she used it.
Woohoo for Texa--oh wait. nevermind.
15 = d-bag
18 -
Confine yourself to the words written on the page. Nowhere does the post say InBev monopolizes the market. It just plainly, and accurately, if not pointlessly, says it has (will have) a monopoly over 50% of the market. It could just as easily of said "which controls 50% of the US beer market."
Your inability to distinguish between a word being used in its legal or non-legal capacity will not serve you well in life or the law.
Dumbass.
- 21
Cockopoly.
Spot on, 35.
Ummm... You can't "monopolize" 50% of anything...
That's not what the word means.
It's "Hoover Institution" not Hoover institution. You should know from all the bad press Rummy got for being named a Distinguished Special Visiting Scholar.
Love,
Former Stanford student
Wow, there is so much wrong in that dragging protest, I don't know where to begin.
The protestors are convinced that racism must have been the reason for the murder, despite the fact the two defendants were friends for a decade with the victim. Further, the mother of the victim blames the DA for one of the defendants receiving a short sentence in a previous case, despite the fact her son perjured himself in that case to help the defendant.
Why is there such a need to make everything into an injustice? Sometimes, shitty things just happen, and it's not always the fault of big bad racism.
21 - um, no. If you are using the legal definition of "monopolize," you cannot monopolize 1% of the market. If you are using the economics definition of "monopolize," you cannot monopolize anything short of 100% of the market. Basic reading skills here. Look at the context of the sentence and then pick the definition of the word that best fits. This is a legal blog, so go with the legal definition. It is an oxymoron to say that you “monopolize” 1% of anything. You, however, are just a regular moron.
18: bluebooking in the comment boxes...classy. The real question is, Do you have to capitalize "lol" or not?
LOL
LOL
foreign law = the law outside of Texas
41 --
I've spent hours looking in the bluebook, and I just do not know. Rule 8 does not have anything to say on the matter. What am I to do?
The real question, I think, is whether the "lol" should be followed by a period. Or, following Rule 6.1, should it be L.O.L.. It probably should be. You've been warned.
-- 18