Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
You are correct. They would be arguing for an extension of the law. Thats how new law gets made.
Prior to 2007, vertical price fixing was per se illegal as well-until this SCOTUS agreed with the defense.
|
This does not agree with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Now people can repeat ad nauseam about what the courts should be looking at, and ascribe any kind of motives to me, but what they can't say is that I am wrong on the law. Because I'm not wrong.
There is a reason why the best legal talent the defense can buy make arguments other than collusion. Because they know the law, and they're not wrong either.
Now Canadian law may be different. May be the law there is that the courts will look only on the issue of collusion, and I bow to your superior expertise there. But US law is different. THE END.
|
When you make idiotic pronouncements about your expertise, and that no one can reasonably doubt you, you deserve the mocking that comes your way. Particularly when you're arguing for nonexistent laws.