I don't know about (2) and what Merrick Garland would have decided, but on

(1) we definitely disagree. The "hot garbage" came from Clarence Thomas:

[1-2]Clarence Thomas crushed his entire “two-sided” transaction analysis with his own contradiction:

When merchants steer cardholders away from Amex at the point of sale, it undermines the cardholder’s expectation of “welcome acceptance”–the promise of a frictionless transaction. A lack of welcome acceptance at one merchant makes a cardholder less likely to use Amex at all other merchants. This externality endangers the viability of the entire Amex network. And it undermines the investments that Amex has made to encourage increased cardholder spending, which discourages investments in rewards and ultimately harms both cardholders and merchants. (Citation omitted)

Externalities are costs or benefits that affect unrelated third parties. A merchant can’t be both unrelated and related — an unrelated externality discussing fees and also a related party in a “two-sided” transaction. Further, he put the effect before the cause — a contract causes externalities, but here, the externality comes before the contract.

If that's what he thinks of "externalities," he needs to start over.