The funny thing is, deep in the economic reasoning, is the realization that Section 202 a) and b), which are producer protections, are essential elements of competition. They are found in competitive markets. If you don't agree with a buyer and there are many, many buyers, you can just go to the next one. In cattle there are few buyers (oligopsony) so this is not possible. The breaking of the prohibitions of Section 202 a) and b) also create barriers of entry to new competitors. If you did not have a) and b) you essentially limit competitors to the existing competitors. Agman, there is no way you can say this is beneficial to competition. Remember, you already brought up the airline industry as an example.
Agman, your economic acuity is limited by your packer bias. Take off the glasses.
The judges in the the case are economic illiterates, liberal "make up the law as you want to", or just plain corrupt. No, Agman, I don't believe judges are above everyone else and you have a problem if you think that they are.