Carter being a Georgia peanut farmer made a huge difference in GA, AL, and SC voting in the 1976 and 1980 elections. You have to remember, he was the first deep south president since the civil war - white voters especially really cared about that. He was just also a disaster of a president, which is a big reason he lost anyway.

If you read Bork's work, especially The Antitrust Paradox, and if you study the caselaw prior to and post 1970's, you'll see a stark difference.

It was really a conservative idea at that point but I'd say it's more neoliberal, which has a strong backing in the democratic party and has for decades, beginning with Carter.

The per se analysis and application, particularly, is just massively different from the pre-Bork era. He's the single largest reason that the three main elements of cost, quality, and quantity as a standard for antitrust analysis has eventually boiled down almost entirely to cost, partially because it's so much easier to measure but also because he advocated for it as a mechanism to measure business efficiency.

One of the big problems of this is the change in fundamentals since Bork was writing in the 70's, particularly with union membership declining so heavily. He was countering a very strong and powerful union system and factored that into his analysis, and we just don't have that in the private sector any longer.

I've been working on a paper for a while about theoretically adding in wage and labor market analysis into the mix, particularly with monopoly and monopsony situations, but it's kinda stalled since I've been clerking.

Honestly, read the guy's book and read some cases if you're interested. You'll see it fairly quickly.

As I learned it, since BMI & ASCAP v. CBS, in 1979, it's essentially been that the per se rule is applied when the courts have enough experience with an accused restraint to know that it is so plainly anticompetitive, and so often lacks any redeeming virtue, that further inquiry in any given case is almost certainly wasted effort

Bork and his acolytes really screwed us, basically, turning a half-baked understanding of economics into a justification to ignore legislation and 60+ years of jurisprudence, and that's carried the day since.

The short staple cotton gin was invented in 1793.

It's not actually about personal suits, financial advice may fall into financial services regulations and that's regulated by the government of the US, EU, etc. so wherever the company is registered may have issues in addition to the potential of the regulations applying to the individual and not shielded by the company.

That's not why. Both are non-citizens. The reason the different laws are being applied matters, because they are totally different legal fights, taking place for different social and political reasons.

>All persons on American soil are entitled to constitutional protections [1]

Some, but not to the same extent as citizens where speech is concerned. For example, foreign nationals are not allowed to spend money to directly support a candidate for elected office, though they may spend to influence an issue. Cf Bluman v. FEC with Citizens United.

It's a matter of degrees, and certainly is impacted by immigrant status and ties to the United States. From a free speech issue and where concerning the speech I have heard from him, I think it's clear that Khalil should not be subject to any kind of government restriction or punishment. That said, it seems likely that he may be deported for other reasons.

I don't disagree with you re due process at all.

Your second and third point is confused. The foundation for the government's belief they can deport Khalil is not the Alien Enemies Act (which is what I assume you mean, as there is no Alien and Seditions Act-the term "Alien and Seditions Acts" refers to four separate acts, one of which is the Alien Enemies Act), it's the Immigration and Nationality Act, the same basis Trump tried to use for Executive Order 13769. More specifically, I think they're using 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i).

That said, the government is absolutely using the Alien Enemies Act to round up people and send them to El Salvador.

>If these people don't have rights to free speech and due process then nobody does.

So this is an interesting legal question because non-citizens definitely do not have complete free speech protections, but the border of where their speech is protected vs unprotected is not entirely clear. It's not true that if they don't, nobody does - it is absolutely clear that citizens of the United States do have rights to free speech and due process. That has been established many times.

The great leap forward would like a word with you.

He engaged in a conflict with the central bank overseeing national finances and banking and vetoed the bill renewing its charter, in part because he perceived the bank as supporting his political opponents. It still had four years to go, but the next year he unilaterally pulled all federal deposits from the bank, putting them in smaller state banks. This crippled the Second Bank of the United States with no Congressional approval or oversight. In fact, he was officially censured by the Senate for doing it.

Some other similarities in tone or type:

Jackson wasn't initially taken seriously as a presidential candidate - he was a political outsider and "a man of the people." He thought the federal government was corrupt and against him. This feeling was not helped by his winning the popular vote in the election of 1824 but it being taken away by the electoral college and ultimately decided by the House of Representatives in a "corrupt bargain."

He basically replaced his entire cabinet because of a conflict between the wives of his cabinet members and the wife of his chief of staff, who had married the widow of another cabinet member after a rumored affair and that member's subsequent suicide.

He had a "kitchen cabinet" of unofficial and unappointed advisors who had extremely significant power in the Federal government, such as Martin Van Buren (who would later become VP), John Overton, and Francis Blair (Editor of the Washington Globe), including some of the richest people in the country at the time - some of whom were bankers, by the way, and directly benefited from the destruction of the 2nd National Bank.

He criminally investigated his presidential predecessor's staff, alleging (and allegedly finding) corruption.

He was accused of being a dictator and a despot, and rattled his saber against Europe, almost going to war with France.

He nominated and successfully appointed completely unqualified judges.

We didn't have the current system of executive agencies until the latter half of the twentieth century, but if we did Jackson would probably have dismantled it.

A couple of books I liked about this era are: The Birth of Modern Politics - https://archive.org/details/birthofmodernpol00lynn

American Lion by Jon Meacham

I was thinking you were saying that you had examples of people who were successful because they smoked weed, where others similarly situated were unsuccessful having not smoked it.

>Weed isn't going to give you a leg up in life, but it's not a guarantee that you're going to end up in a dead end job and live with your parents forever either.

Sure, and smoking doesn't guarantee lung cancer. It sure as hell makes it more likely, though.