Comment by akiselev

5 years ago

> I do not see how these three things are not implemented in the next 12 months.

4. Supreme Court throws consumer protection under the bus and finds in Amazon's favor

6 comments

akiselev

Reply
dannyw  5 years ago

I believe this case is state law. The supreme court wouldn't have jurisdiction generally speaking.

  • Natsu  5 years ago

    In that case, wouldn't it just go to the California Supreme Court instead of SCOTUS?

    But yeah, unqualified usage of 'supreme court' makes things confusing because that normally resolves to SCOTUS.

  • akvadrako  5 years ago

    This sounds like a case that could easily be construed to constitute interstate commerce.

    • GavinMcG  5 years ago

      All that means is that Congress has the authority to legislate in the area. Interstate commerce isn't a basis for federal court jurisdiction.

      The Supreme Court still reviews state supreme court decisions, but Amazon would have to allege some sort of constitutional violation, which seems unlikely here.

pmoriarty  5 years ago

Alternatively, the Supreme Court could flex its muscles and show those naughty big tech firms who's boss. I'm sure plenty of conservatives would love that.

That impulse would be balanced by the "pro-business" (usually anti-consumer) attitude many conservatives have, so it could go either way.

  • AdrianB1  5 years ago

    I am not that familiar with US politics, but "pro-business" does not mean "anti-consumer". In my country pro-business measures would be to make it simpler to open a new company (it used to take several months) and there is nothing "anti-consumer" in it.