In response to:
Actually, as usual, you idiot liberals have it backwards. The Supreme court has adopted bork's view that the central role of anti-trust law is to protect consumer welfare. As far as your idiot monachy commnet, Bork was for the opposite: The democratic process making the decisions when the constitution is silent, like on abortion, which supposed to be the way our system works. The liberal/subversive/treasonous "judges" are the one trying to have the court becoming the oligarchy, with unelected judges, with no basis in the const., striking down democratically-enacted laws, simply because they don't like them. He didn't deride mainstream America, but believed in their wisdom to self-govern. Bork derided the aforesaid elites in the judiciary.
The last time I saw Bob Bork was the Sunday before Election Day. His familiar baritone was faint. You had to sit close to hear him, and he seemed to have a little difficulty following the conversation.
At one point, his son Bob directed his attention to an Obama ad that was running on the Internet. It warned darkly that if Romney was elected, he would nominate Robert Bork for the Supreme Court! Bob, who has inherited his father's wry sense of humor (as well as his intellect), played the ad on an iPad. Bob Sr. didn't react at...
To Bork, the 9th Amendment is an "inkblot" on the Constitution; completely meaningless. Therefore there are no unenumerated rights "retained by the people". His majoritarian philosophy is similar to that of Holmes, where the "activist judge" is supplanted by the "will of the people". Both are highly problematic.
Which doesn't detract from radical's assertion. ALL anti-trust is anti-consumer, regardless of what the welfare economists have attemtped to spin. Read The Case Against Antitrust by Armantano for an indepth look at the economic fallacies and the real world results of the Sherman Act. It is nothing more than judicial protectionism.
Bravo, Liti-Gator!