The NFL Antitrust Case SCOTUS Argument Transcript

The American Needle v. NFL Supreme Court argument transcript is available here (PDF). I have not read it. when I do I'll provide some comment. I discuss the case in a previous post.

Pains me to say it, but it seemed to me Justice Scalia had the best grasp of the issues in the case. Based on his questions, I see him as rejecting the NFL's argument.

Speaking for me only

< Dems Do Not Know How To Bargain: Example XXX | Will Reconciliation Make A Comeback On The Health Bill? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Scalia for the little guy? (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    Is he feeling ok?

    Reading halfway through, it almost looked (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    like "Scalia for going to lunch." ;-)

    But I don't know a thing about antitrust.


    I can't speak your language... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:35:31 PM EST
    never mind the particular dialect...I was just going by BTD's take.

    And yours now ag:) Thanks.


    The reason why was (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    Scalia found the other justices questions, with reasons, rather off the point.

    the only reason this case is being heard is because the NFL is trying to strongarm the case into a declaration that NFL is in all aspects a single entity.

    The Court should never have taken the case.

    I wonder if Scalia voted against cert.


    But the Seventh Circuit (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:54:36 PM EST
    decided the case on the basis of the single-entity argument.  It's not like the NFL is bringing in a novel theory out of left field, they're simply trying to nationalize a ruling that only applies in one circuit right now.

    It was funny to see Breyer and Sotomayor acknowledge that they don't know a lot about football.  I guess they are baseball people.


    That was funny (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:58:36 PM EST
    Breyer made an attempt, and then switched to the Red Sox and the Yankees.

    Yep (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:12:47 PM EST
    See it every day. Prevailing party asking for review.

    It would be funny if the case got remanded and then the NFL lost.


    Well now (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    of course it's unusual for the winning party to support review, but this is still the losing party's appeal.  It's not as though the Court is somehow compelled to take a case just because both sides agree it should be heard.

    I was thinking in particular (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    of the way he seemed to go after Breyer when Nager was up.

    I defer to you on the issues.


    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 04:34:56 PM EST
    Read Scalia's Trinko (2004) opinion (none / 0) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 07:45:29 AM EST
    in which he limits one type of antitrust action.  Ask yourself, is this the same guy who time & again dismisses environmental suits for lack of standing?  Seems standing or lack thereof is just another tool to use when you're an activist judge like Scalia who wants to limit (gut?) how  laws enacted to promote public interests over corporations are applied.

    I suspect Scalia will cast his vote with the NFL and the interests of corporations in further weakening longstanding anti-trust laws.  

    If Breyer and Sotomayer were as ignorant of football as commenters say then I think they at least will have a hard time buying the NFL's argument that it is a single entity competing with baseball, rock and roll and other forms of entertainment.  Doesn't sound like either justice would substitute football for baseball.