I'm sure someone has said this and more; I'm just thinking aloud. However, I don't think it has had enough influence, given that the broad version of rejecting "congressional intent" has been very sticky, and somewhat across political spectrum

The analogy that made me think about this is to doctrines that don't quite have formal intent element yet clearly incorporate some judgments about the actor's state of mind. Might think of something similar for congressional intent- eg, ruling out some interpretations, if not dictating a precise one

The arguments prove too much, is what i'm saying

He has been released.
www.theguardian.com/world/2025/n...

It sounds strange now, but twitter was actually kind of important to me a few years back, in terms of intellectual community, set within a larger ecosystem. That's been completely destroyed, so it wasn't really a question of giving something up.

While I wish we might have started in a different place, I wouldn't advocate giving them up now without a meaningful trade...

I also think that with the evolution of the substantive rules, the risk of treble damages lies disproportionately upon less sophisticated parties. Of course, given what we've got, they are a useful tool with more powerful parties too.

I think damages are important (when appropriate) and are of course important for the viability of private enforcement. Unfortunately, the availability of treble damages has supported the development of many other barriers to litigation - and that's been a bad trade overall.

Had to get this off my chest before getting into writing mode

Labor unions as antitrust plaintiffs?? how is this possible, they're basically cartels!! Let's reify a whole concept of appropriate plaintiffs, beyond existing restrictions, instead of thinking about this further