Antitrust Populism and the Conservative Movement
October 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM ET
During the 1986 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for then-Judge Antonin Scalia, he was asked about his views on antitrust. “In law school, I never understood [antitrust law],” Scalia explained, “I later found out, in reading the writings of those who now do understand it, that I should not have understood it because it did not make any sense then.” Some contend that the much-needed coherency in antitrust law was brought about by the Chicago School revolution and the adoption of the consumer welfare standard.
Today, Robert Bork’s consumer welfare paradigm faces challenge. Antitrust law is back at a political crossroads, with both sides calling for a politicized approach to address problems such as anti-conservative bias, economic and racial inequality, and a whole host of other issues, while focusing on slogans and labels rather than relevant economic and legal questions. Additionally, some experts argue that the economic consequences of many of the recent proposals would make the American economy and consumers substantially worse off across a wide array of industries.
At the same time, today’s antitrust debate underscores some interesting rifts and tension within both political parties, serving as an interesting microcosm of broader political dynamics.
Join the Pennsylvania Student Chapter of the Federalist Society and the Penn Law Journal of Law and Innovation for a discussion on the current state of the antitrust debate and its underlying arguments and motivations.
Director of Public Policy
Committee for Justice
James G. Dinan University Professor
Carey Law School, University of Pennsylvania
Federalist Society’s Pennsylvania Student Chapter
Penn Law Journal of Law and Innovation
The Federalist Society and Regulatory Transparency Project take no position on particular legal or public policy matters. All expressions of opinion are those of the speaker(s). To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].