On the one hand, I think the majority decision made a good argument on economic grounds that allowing manufacturers to dictate minimum prices to retailers is not necessarily a restraint of competition.
On the other hand, the Supremes were not overturning a law--they were overturning their predecessors' interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That doesn't sit well with me. The old interpretation had been settled for almost a hundred years. It manufacturers had a good case to make for changing it, they should have gone to Congress and convinced our elected representatives to change the law.
I'm also worried that this is part of a broader trend in American jurisprudence to interpret the law in whatever way is most convenient for large corporations.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-08-09 12:49 am (UTC)On the other hand, the Supremes were not overturning a law--they were overturning their predecessors' interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That doesn't sit well with me. The old interpretation had been settled for almost a hundred years. It manufacturers had a good case to make for changing it, they should have gone to Congress and convinced our elected representatives to change the law.
I'm also worried that this is part of a broader trend in American jurisprudence to interpret the law in whatever way is most convenient for large corporations.