Hatchetman is back

On today's front page, the LAT published a piece by David G. Savage (aka The Hatchetman because of his tendency to cut-off at the knees conservative judges and justices whenever he gets an opportunity) in which he alleges that the Roberts Court is pro-business. Savage cites several recent decisions of the Court and argues they support his view. But some of these decisions arguably are anti-lunacy decisions -- so obvious it would be lunacy not to agree. For example, in a case where it was alleged that the Baby Bells had conspired not to compete, the Court held that it was necessary to prove more than that conspiracy was possible. Savage seems to argue that was decision was wrong, that the possibility of conspiracy was enough. Possibly, one could rob a bank or steal a car but prosecution isn't appropriate until the bank has been robbed or the car stolen.