Indeed, the Supremes may not accept direct review. However, I think that your note about the ideological slant of the court isn't entirely relevant in this case.
This is not a case involving a fundamental "right" or a foundational topic where the personal ideology of the justices is something of a determining factor. Rather, this is a case involving alleged violation of a very old and very understood Congressional statute, based on the bedrock of the Commerce Clause much more solidly than many other Commerce Clause based statutes the Supremes have allowed to stand.
The Supremes will not review or dispute facts of the case. That is not the role of an appellate court. If they take the case directly from the district court or the circuit court, as it is, then the current Findings of Fact will be accepted prima facia, barring any finding of procedural error in their determination. The only basis for finding for the respondant, or remanding the case back to original jurisdiction, will be a finding that the Sherman Act is unconstitutional in part or whole, that the law was improperly applied to the facts, or that the court made a procedural mistake which would have affected the outcome of the case. They might also find that while Microsoft did indeed violate the law, the remedy is not appropriate, however, a) the Supremes tend to be rather aloof on matters such as that, and would likely defer to the original court on remedy given no other fault in the original decision, and b) the Supremes have indicated a preference for structural remedy over regulatory oversight.
Given the gross improbability that the Supremes will invalidate Sherman in part or whole, and given the Findings of Fact wherein Microsoft's actions were a rather textbook example of Sherman violation, I do not believe that the Supremes will find for Microsoft in any substantive way. The ruling against Microsoft is a valid application of accepted federal law. In fact, I wouldn't be completely shocked if the case came to them still held against Microsoft, and they denied certiorari. Remember, once these cases reach the Supreme Court, they become primarily vehicles used to define our law. This case doesn't seem to lend itself well to being a useful vehicle toward that goal. Then again, the Renquist Court is a lot more ballsy than any other Court since '37, so who knows...
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a case involving a fundamental "right" or a foundational topic where the personal ideology of the justices is something of a determining factor. Rather, this is a case involving alleged violation of a very old and very understood Congressional statute, based on the bedrock of the Commerce Clause much more solidly than many other Commerce Clause based statutes the Supremes have allowed to stand.
The Supremes will not review or dispute facts of the case. That is not the role of an appellate court. If they take the case directly from the district court or the circuit court, as it is, then the current Findings of Fact will be accepted prima facia, barring any finding of procedural error in their determination. The only basis for finding for the respondant, or remanding the case back to original jurisdiction, will be a finding that the Sherman Act is unconstitutional in part or whole, that the law was improperly applied to the facts, or that the court made a procedural mistake which would have affected the outcome of the case. They might also find that while Microsoft did indeed violate the law, the remedy is not appropriate, however, a) the Supremes tend to be rather aloof on matters such as that, and would likely defer to the original court on remedy given no other fault in the original decision, and b) the Supremes have indicated a preference for structural remedy over regulatory oversight.
Given the gross improbability that the Supremes will invalidate Sherman in part or whole, and given the Findings of Fact wherein Microsoft's actions were a rather textbook example of Sherman violation, I do not believe that the Supremes will find for Microsoft in any substantive way. The ruling against Microsoft is a valid application of accepted federal law. In fact, I wouldn't be completely shocked if the case came to them still held against Microsoft, and they denied certiorari. Remember, once these cases reach the Supreme Court, they become primarily vehicles used to define our law. This case doesn't seem to lend itself well to being a useful vehicle toward that goal. Then again, the Renquist Court is a lot more ballsy than any other Court since '37, so who knows...