Bush Court: We're not bound by precedent when there's "widespread agreement" among Chicago School economists
More evidence of why Scalia et al threw election 2000 to the Republicans in Bush v. Gore. They wanted the votes for decisions like this:
Justice Kennedy said Thursday that the court was not bound by the 1911 precedent because of the “widespread agreement” among economists that resale price maintenance agreements can promote competition.
And I bet you can guess the kind of economists they're listening to:
That's right: The guys who brought you Augusto Pinochet:
The Bush administration, along with economists of the Chicago school, had argued that the blanket prohibition against resale price maintenance agreements was archaic and counterproductive because, they said, some resale price agreements actually promote competition.
Of course they would say that, they'll say anything, but come on. What the decision does is allow corporations to take away your option to buy products at a discount:
The decision will give producers significantly more, though not unlimited, power to dictate retail prices and to restrict the flexibility of discounters.
Tell me again why we regard the Bush Court as any more legitimate than Cheney's fourth branch of government?
UPDATE Another way of looking at this is that the Bush Court just took $1000 out of my pocket and gave it to the corps:
During a 38-year period from 1937 to 1975 that Congress permitted the states to adopt laws allowing retail price fixing [which the Bush Court--well, I won't say "legalized," I'll just say "encouraged"--again with this decision], economists estimated that such agreements covered about 10 percent of consumer good purchases. In today’s dollars, Justice Breyer estimated that the agreements translated to a higher annual average bill for a family of four of about $750 to $1,000.
Tell me again about those tax cuts, Dear Leader! Your stories make me feel so warm and comfy!