« Subsidizing Good Works (by Students) | Main | Secrecy and Self-Governance »

December 07, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


In the interest of predictability and a smooth running judiciary, I'm can't say I'm all comforted by an expanding Rule of Reason. But perhaps with Leegin Creative Leather Products the Court won't look to Khan for inspiration, but FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Assn..


"If minimum RPM today, what will come tomorrow?"

Habeas Corpus?


With regard to why now for minimum RPM, I'd guess that the existence of the Colgate exception meant that the Court has had very few opportunities to address the subject.


The girl told me that she and her mother were sick and later the girl and her father told me that the girl doing ok.

The justice department told me that they are looking into it...

I contacted the United Nations to validate the Justice System.


Better now than never, I suppose. I think it´s interesting that Randy notes the high number of anti trust cases on the docket. If it just so happens that the justices (or their clerks) are more interested in/concerned about anti trust cases, they may be looking to clear up the backwaters in that particular area, but could leave others by the wayside.

I think it may have a lot to do with the justices´ personal beliefs or feelings about what is most important at this particular juncture. Their low docket may be a result of this as well. If the Court doesn´t find a particular subject compelling, they probably won´t rule on it.

This could be an insight into the personality of the court, more than a simple desire to clear up backwaters.

The comments to this entry are closed.