An American preacher with extreme anti-gay and anti-Semitic views has become the first person ever banned from Ireland by exclusion powers dating from 1999.
[...]
Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan signed the exclusion on Sunday in respect of Pastor Steven L Anderson with immediate effect under the Immigration Act 1999.

Section 4 of the Act allows the Minister to sign an exclusion order if he "considers it necessary in the interest of national security or public policy".

"I have signed the exclusion order under my executive powers in the interests of public policy," said Mr Flanagan.

"Apple's line-drawing does not make a lot of sense, other than as a way to gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits," Kavanaugh wrote. "In particular, we fail to see why the form of the upstream arrangement between the manufacturer or supplier and the retailer should determine whether a monopolistic retailer can be sued by a downstream consumer who has purchased a good or service directly from the retailer and has paid a higher-than-competitive price because of the retailer's unlawful monopolistic conduct."

reference
Apple Inc. vs. Pepper, et al.
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977)
DOJ | Monopoly power and market power in antitrust law
US vs. Apple, Inc., et al.
archived restraint of trade vs. free trade
the meaning of "gerrymander" in the USA
"that is done by segregating"
Conservatives' takeover of Supreme Court stalled by John Roberts-Brett Kavanaugh bromance
We Can't Let Kavanaugh's Confirmation Go

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

The rudiments of the power to punish for "contempt of Congress" come to us from the pages of English history. The origin of privileges and contempts extends back into the period of the emergence of Parliament. The establishment of a legislative body which could challenge the absolute power of the monarch is a long and bitter story. In that struggle, Parliament made broad and varied use of the contempt power. Almost from the beginning, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords claimed absolute and plenary authority over their privileges. This was an independent body of law, described by Coke as lex parliamenti. [Footnote 9] Only Parliament could declare what those privileges were or what new privileges were occasioned, and only Parliament could judge what conduct constituted a breach of privilege.

In particular, this exclusion of lex parliamenti from the lex terrae, or law of the land, precluded judicial review of the exercise of the contempt power or the assertion of privilege. Parliament declared that no court had jurisdiction to consider such questions. In the latter part of the seventeenth century, an action for false imprisonment was brought by one Jay, who had been held in contempt. The defendant, the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, demurred that he had taken the plaintiff into custody for breach of privilege. The Chief Justice, Pemberton, overruled the demurrer. Summoned to the bar of the House, the Chief Justice explained that he believed that the assertion of privilege went to the merits of the action, and did not preclude jurisdiction. For his audacity, the Chief Justice was dispatched to Newgate Prison. [Footnote 10]

It seems inevitable that the power claimed by Parliament would have been abused. Unquestionably it was. A few examples illustrate the way in which individual rights were infringed. During the seventeenth century, there was a violent upheaval, both religious and political. This was the time of the Reformation and the establishment of the Church of England. It was also the period when the Stuarts proclaimed that the royal prerogative was absolute. Ultimately there were two revolutions, one protracted and bloody, the second without bloodshed. Critical commentary of all kinds was treated as contempt of Parliament in these troubled days.
[...]
The history of contempt of the legislature in this country is notably different from that of England. In the early days of the United States, there lingered the direct knowledge of the evil effects of absolute power. Most of the instances of use of compulsory process by the first Congresses concerned matters affecting the qualification or integrity of their members or came about in inquiries dealing with suspected corruption or mismanagement of government officials. [Footnote 19] Unlike the English practice, from the very outset, the use of contempt power by the legislature was deemed subject to judicial review. [Footnote 20] ...

Elaine Kamarck, a ["]scholar["] at the liberal Brookings Institution who worked in the Clinton White House, said the House subpoenas of Trump's banks and accountants are a world away from the McCarthy era's hunt for Communists.