[marricks]

It’s a pro business anti consumer supreme court which knows it’d be dangerous to appear that way. Government and court will hamstring their ability to help consumers.

My favorite comment on HN was some law student saying his prof said “Scalia is the most complicated supreme court member whose views are always unpredictable” and the commenter said “he’s just a corporate hack who always votes for corporations and backs it up” and sure enough he guessed every ruling correctly.

[skeeter2020]

>> It’s a pro business anti consumer supreme court

Maybe? But this wasn't the supreme court: "...was vacated by the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit."

[js2]

The 8th Circuit has an even more conservative composition than SCOTUS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals...

Case was decided by Loken (GHW Bush), Erickson (Trump), and Kobes (Trump).

[pinkmuffinere]

> they rightly commented that if this was allowed to stand, the FTC and every government agency would just always estimate low in these cases.

I think you missed this — it isn’t some arbitrary reason to rule in an anti-consumer way. There is good reason to do so. Imo we should keep our checks and balances strong, and this is one small action that does that.

[antonvs]

> Imo we should keep our checks and balances strong

I think the tense of this sentence is not quite right. Something more like "Make checks and balances strong again" would work.

[bagels]

There are always reasons on both sides of a case

[mring33621]

so, small questionable wins for normal people would break the system while big, veeeeerrrrry questionable wins for some subset of the elite are OK?

[AlexCornila]

sure bud .. wake the fck up