ameister14

>Lawyers don't use PACER. They'll have a LexisNexis or Westlaw terminal. That gets them all of the rulings and so forth, but annotated.

I don't know about that; I've used PACER a fair amount, despite also using Westlaw.

While I generally agree with your foundation of the political switch, I just want to point out that elections in the 1970's through 1990's were still very regional. Southern candidates tended to do well in the South against candidates from California or the North, despite policy differences that would seem to strike the other way. The JFK/Nixon election was much more of an urbanization/rural divide as both candidates were from away.

Carter being a Georgia peanut farmer made a huge difference in GA, AL, and SC voting in the 1976 and 1980 elections. You have to remember, he was the first deep south president since the civil war - white voters especially really cared about that. He was just also a disaster of a president, which is a big reason he lost anyway.

I'm not saying current political conservatives are the cause, Bork was hugely influential beyond traditional conservative circles, particularly in antitrust law.

If you read Bork's work, especially The Antitrust Paradox, and if you study the caselaw prior to and post 1970's, you'll see a stark difference.

It was really a conservative idea at that point but I'd say it's more neoliberal, which has a strong backing in the democratic party and has for decades, beginning with Carter.

The per se analysis and application, particularly, is just massively different from the pre-Bork era. He's the single largest reason that the three main elements of cost, quality, and quantity as a standard for antitrust analysis has eventually boiled down almost entirely to cost, partially because it's so much easier to measure but also because he advocated for it as a mechanism to measure business efficiency.

One of the big problems of this is the change in fundamentals since Bork was writing in the 70's, particularly with union membership declining so heavily. He was countering a very strong and powerful union system and factored that into his analysis, and we just don't have that in the private sector any longer.

I've been working on a paper for a while about theoretically adding in wage and labor market analysis into the mix, particularly with monopoly and monopsony situations, but it's kinda stalled since I've been clerking.

Honestly, read the guy's book and read some cases if you're interested. You'll see it fairly quickly.

Basically it should be illegal per se but since the 70's the Court has really limited how they apply that and so courts generally prefer to do a competitive analysis/quick look first. In this case, the argument might be that since the cost to consumer doesn't increase, it isn't a naked price fix so it's not per se illegal.

As I learned it, since BMI & ASCAP v. CBS, in 1979, it's essentially been that the per se rule is applied when the courts have enough experience with an accused restraint to know that it is so plainly anticompetitive, and so often lacks any redeeming virtue, that further inquiry in any given case is almost certainly wasted effort

Bork and his acolytes really screwed us, basically, turning a half-baked understanding of economics into a justification to ignore legislation and 60+ years of jurisprudence, and that's carried the day since.

The cotton gin was not invented in 1793, but the claim wasn't a narrative hustle.

The short staple cotton gin was invented in 1793.

Well, in the United States it doesn't make the news.

>Unpopular opinion here... If you tread carefully you'll most likely not succeed. I am not American and I know you guys like to sue eachother for putting cats in microwaves and stuff so maybe this is not great opinion to have in America at the current moment.

It's not actually about personal suits, financial advice may fall into financial services regulations and that's regulated by the government of the US, EU, etc. so wherever the company is registered may have issues in addition to the potential of the regulations applying to the individual and not shielded by the company.

>I'm aware that Khalil's case involves the McCarthyesque Immigration and Nationality Act because he's a lawful permanent resident where non-citizens are being processed under things like the Alien Enemies Act. Let's not get lost in the weeds here

That's not why. Both are non-citizens. The reason the different laws are being applied matters, because they are totally different legal fights, taking place for different social and political reasons.

>All persons on American soil are entitled to constitutional protections [1]

Some, but not to the same extent as citizens where speech is concerned. For example, foreign nationals are not allowed to spend money to directly support a candidate for elected office, though they may spend to influence an issue. Cf Bluman v. FEC with Citizens United.

It's a matter of degrees, and certainly is impacted by immigrant status and ties to the United States. From a free speech issue and where concerning the speech I have heard from him, I think it's clear that Khalil should not be subject to any kind of government restriction or punishment. That said, it seems likely that he may be deported for other reasons.

I don't disagree with you re due process at all.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Technically at the time of the arrest he was accused of criminal conduct, but not charged with criminal conduct. I believe he is still within the legally required timeline to be charged with criminal conduct, though he may be subject to deportation without such charges, we'll see.

Your second and third point is confused. The foundation for the government's belief they can deport Khalil is not the Alien Enemies Act (which is what I assume you mean, as there is no Alien and Seditions Act-the term "Alien and Seditions Acts" refers to four separate acts, one of which is the Alien Enemies Act), it's the Immigration and Nationality Act, the same basis Trump tried to use for Executive Order 13769. More specifically, I think they're using 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i).

That said, the government is absolutely using the Alien Enemies Act to round up people and send them to El Salvador.

>If these people don't have rights to free speech and due process then nobody does.

So this is an interesting legal question because non-citizens definitely do not have complete free speech protections, but the border of where their speech is protected vs unprotected is not entirely clear. It's not true that if they don't, nobody does - it is absolutely clear that citizens of the United States do have rights to free speech and due process. That has been established many times.

Ownership is classically a combination of a bundle of rights. You have most of those rights, but you do not have all of them.

>All famines are caused by natural disasters.

The great leap forward would like a word with you.

He stole those too

Using state violence to protect property is literally one of the main reasons for having a state at all.