Dumbass Republican Members of Congress Who Are Threatening MLB Need a History Lesson.

[quote]Political reaction to MLB moving All-Star Game out of Atlanta includes threat from GOP congressman

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R), who represents South Carolina's third district in the U.S. House of Representatives, took things a step further by announcing that he has instructed his staff to draft legislation to remove MLB's antitrust exemption.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) tweeted his support for Duncan's idea, questioning why MLB has antitrust immunity at all.[/quote]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/political-reaction-mlb-all-star-game-atlanta-threat-gop-congressman-221326043.html

These ignorant dumbasses need to be informed that it was MLB's antitrust exemption that allowed Atlanta to steal the Braves from Milwaukee in the first place.

[i]State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc.[/i]
31 Wis. 2d 699 (1966)
STATE, Respondent, v. MILWAUKEE BRAVES, INC., and others, Appellants.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

GERRI · 51-55, F

Holmes and the Supreme Court were wrong in their 1922 ruling. Baseball or any sports league are not deserving of any antitrust exemptions.
Why should they be? Especially now that they've made a habit of being a political activist group.

That said: The crux of this hoo-ha is the Georgia Election law--- which is being misrepresented as being racist. I would ask MLB, do I have to show an I.D. to pick up my ticket at the Will-Call window?

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@GERRI

The U.S. Supreme Court is never "wrong" unless it reverses itself.

You may disagree with the decision, but that's the way it's been for nearly a century.

These latest Members of Congress are trotting out the same old story about the antitrust exemption. It usually happens when a team is moving out of their state. Now it's about a game that should have never been given to Atlanta in the first place.

GERRI · 51-55, F

@beckyromero The Supreme Court can often be wrong--- Unless you believe a minority opinion can never be correct.
If the same 1922 Supreme Court were intact today and this was brought before them for the first time--- Their ruling would be the opposite, almost surely.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@GERRI

The U.S. Supreme Court cannot be "wrong" unless it reverses itself.

You or I might not agree with a particular decision and may think it unjust ([i]Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford[/i], [i]Korematsu v. United States[/i], etc.), but it is not "wrong" as SCOTUS is the highest law in the land, that is if you believe in the Rule of Law.

"Almost surely"?

What the same 1922 Supreme Court may or may not do today is merely conjecture. SCOTUS has had at least three chances to reverse itself since 1922, most recently two years ago in [i]Right Field Rooftops v. Chicago Cubs Baseball[/i], and has refused.

GERRI · 51-55, F

@beckyromero Of course, it's conjecture-- hence, "almost surely"--

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@GERRI [quote]Of course, it's conjecture-- hence, "almost surely"--[/quote]

Purely conjecture.

The Court rarely reverses itself.

It would be more likely that Congress would. But regardless of all the noise by a few ignorant Members of Congress who couldn't tell a baseball from their own balls, I don't expect that to happen, either.

GERRI · 51-55, F

@beckyromero Your apparent fondness of baseball aside--- It is ridiculous to claim the Supreme Court "can never be wrong" without their own admissions of being wrong.

Yours is but a circular argument. But I respect your apparent zeal for baseball-- I don't understand it,, but I respect it.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@GERRI

[b][i]We[/i][/b] may think a decision as "wrong" or "immoral."

But since SCOTUS is final arbiter of our laws, it can't be on the 'wrong side of the law.'