NOTHING suprises me about this GOP-owned Supreme Court anymore. Only a few weeks ago, they ruled in favor of further wage discrimination against women. On an “unfettered, unregulated, wide-open markets” roll, they took a look at retail price fixing by monopolies and — you guessed it — big biz wins and the little guy loses again. Just earlier, the GOP SCOTUS had ruled in favor of segregating public schools again. I’m beginning to think dusting off the RICO Act to investigate what goes on behind the scenes at the SCOTUS just MIGHT not be a bad idea. Perhaps, term limits need to be explored as well?
From The ["traitorous" -- some say] New York Times:
Justices End 96-Year-Old Ban on Price Floors
By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, June 28 — Striking down an antitrust rule nearly a century old, the Supreme Court ruled today that it is no longer automatically unlawful for manufacturers and distributors to agree on setting minimum retail prices.
The decision will give producers significantly more leeway, though not unlimited power, to dictate retail prices and to restrict the flexibility of discounters.
Five justices said the new rule could, in some instances, lead to more competition and better service. But four dissenting justices agreed with the submission of 37 states and consumer groups that the abandonment of the old rule would lead to significantly higher prices and less competition for consumer and other goods.
The court struck down the 96-year-old rule that resale price maintenance agreements were an automatic, or per se, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In its place, the court instructed judges considering such agreements for possible antitrust violations to apply a case-by-case approach, known as a “rule of reason,” to assess their impact on competition. …”
“Case by case approach”… did you catch that? Drumming up some more “bidness” for their buddies at the ABA, no doubt. RICO Act… stop using it to catch Hell’s Angels and START using it to slap corrupt members of our Government — all FOUR branches, including the SCOTUS, and Vice President Cheney’s new “SuperBranch” into prison for hijacking the Democratic Republic of our Founding Fathers. Sound like a good idea to you? Sounds like a great idea to moi (and yes, I AM part French; no apologies for that one either).
Then, the GOP activist majority of the Supreme Court goes on to actually explain this as a way to take the “bidness” away from the lawyers? The AUDACITY of these CREEPS. Do they think we are mental midgets? Apparently so…
Check out THIS bunch of crappola from this “bunch“:
“In sum, it is a flawed antitrust doctrine that serves the interests of lawyers — by creating legal distinctions that operate as traps for the unaware — more than the interests of consumers — by requiring manufacturers to choose second-best options to achieve sound business objectives,” the court said in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. …”
Let us review two main points of the above “snippets” one more time in order to enjoy the hipocrisy to the utmost…
Snippet 1:
“… the court instructed judges considering such agreements for possible antitrust violations to apply a case-by-case approach, known as a “rule of reason,” to assess their impact on competition. …”
And, Snippet 2:
“In sum, it is a flawed antitrust doctrine that serves the interests of lawyers …”
Uhmmm… YEAH. And I just fell off the proverbial “turnip truck”, too. The existing anti-trust laws needed to be rewritten because they benefitted the lawyers instead of the consumers… yeah, I think I’ve got it. But, see; this new, rewritten law by these GOP activist justices will open up a whole new bag of worms to be considered in the lower courts on a “case-to-case” basis, which will (supposedly) “benefit the consumers rather than the lawyers” they tell us?
In essence, what they have done here is refuse to uphold the existing laws, choosing instead to RE-WRITE them in order to better clog our civil courts with tons of brand new cases, meaning more lucrative corporate law gigs for lawyers, and an ASSURED transfer of wealth from consumers to monopolistic, big biz, big box retailers, including Big Oil, who ALSO happens to be in the retail “bidness”. I bet the ABA just LOVES this ruling.
Let’s take a look at a couple more of my favorite snippets before I sign off for the evening:
“… The decision was the latest in a string of opinions this term to overturn Supreme Court precedents. It marked the latest in a line of Supreme Court victories for big businesses and antitrust defendants. And it was the latest of the court’s antitrust decisions in recent years to reject rules that had prohibited various marketing agreements between companies. …”
(Snip!)
“… For example, they said, such agreements can make it easier for a new producer by assuring retailers that they will be able to recoup their investments in helping to market the product. And they said some distributors could be unfairly harmed by others — like Internet-based retailers — that could offer discounts because they would not be incurring the expenses of providing product demonstrations and other specialized consumer services.
A majority of the court agreed that the flat ban on price agreements discouraged these and other marketing practices that could be helpful to competition. …” [emphasis, mine]
Ruling out the Right side of the aisle in either the House or the Senate, have you ever, in your lives, HEARD such far-right, smoke and mirrors BULLCRAP? How in the hell could these “big bidness NITWITS” be more clearly anti-small business and PRO “big bidness”? Those who can keep their overhead down to the point where they can offer a product and/or service for a lower price than a HUGE, MONOPOLISTIC, BIG BOX RETAILER ARE BEING SOMEHOW UNFAIR TO BOTH THE HOUSEHOLD NAME RETAILER WHO INCURS HIGHER OPERATING COSTS AND THE CONSUMER?
I’m serious — I want to know just whom has been paying off these five so-called “Supreme Court justices” who’ve been on a mission to legislate all of these new pro “big bidness” laws from the bench over the last couple of years. Does anybody have any images of these BUFFOONS hanging out with Jack Abramoff? I wouldn’t be the LEAST bit surprised…
I believe I’ve finally discovered where one application of side-stepping the FISA court requirements before the commencement of warrantless wiretapping and data-mining by the Executive Branch JUST might be in order, and in case you haven’t guessed it; I’m beginning to think this current composition of the Supreme Court of The United States of America could be a very worthy target of such actions. Don’t rely on President Bush to do it though; we all know how that would turn out. But, perhaps, the FBI should get the ball rolling…
SOMETHING smells pretty damned ROTTEN in “Robe Land” to moi right now.
Other voices weigh in; courtesy in part, of MemeOrandum: The Newshoggers; Americablog; Corrente; Lawyers, Guns and Money
Loading ...
2:57 am on June 29th, 2007 1
[...] are the great Conservative legal minds at work. The Gun Toting Liberal echoes the same observation, Republican Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Retail Monopolies, Against Small Business, And In Favor O… The new, rewritten law by these GOP activist justices will open up a whole new bag of worms to be [...]
2:27 pm on July 6th, 2007 2
This ruling does help small businesses like ours, ones with good but relatively small amounts of sales and relatively high overhead, because we employees are treated well. We cannot negotiate the massive discounts and rebates that the big boys can, and therefore even when we advertise something at “MAP” our margin is under a buck a unit, or about 5% profit (not counting overhead, of course). This ruling levels the playing field between us and, say, Best Buy, forbidding them from undercutting us drastically (unless, of course, they refuse to take any advertising money).
I do agree that it’s ridiculous that these MAP agreements should be judged case-by-case. Retail moves much too quickly to have every advertisement tied up in courts!