[closetnerd]

My perspective here is that to do the job was going to be near impossible. No one even knows at this point how to succeed.

And if we need to learn how to succeed, the initial heuristic of applying the law is the only starting point. Failure was the expected initial result.

She can fail for the entirety of her term. We lose nothing from the status quo. But if she can stick to it - then after she's taken enough of the initial beatings, someone else can come and succeed with the learnings she provides.

[murderfs]

It's not really "applying the law" if you're repeatedly defeated in court.

[yathaid]

This take is so misinformed on how the law works, I am not even sure where to begin. Cases are often decided by judges and how they __interpret__ the law. If you have two generations of the judiciary who have grown up drinking the kool-aid of the magical auto-correcting market, you cannot do shit.

> 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.

[1] - https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/all-rise-how-judges-rule-...

[infamouscow]

The cases are being lost.

It doesn't matter to what degree someone is informed if they're pointing out objective facts.

[prasadjoglekar]

Indeed, it's actually worse than not doing anything at all, since the record now has precedents that influence future actions.