ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Anti-price Fixing Decision Overturned by U.S. Supreme Court

Updated on August 8, 2007

Bush has put a heavy thumb on the scales of justice

Retail price fixing by manufacturers now legal

In another of a string of pro-business, anti-competitive decsions the Bush Court overturned an 96-year-old decision which had outlawed retail price fixing by manufacturerts. For example, in the future motor vehicle prices may be set by manufacturers, not dealers, eliminating "suggested" from MSRP (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) stickers in new car show rooms.

In his confirmation hearing Chief Justice Roberts affirmed his belief in adhering to established precedents. Nevertheless, he and Scalia, Thomas and Alito voted as a block along with Justice Kennedy in this precedent breaking decision. Here's a link to a NYTimes "breaking news" article on the latest of several pro-business Supreme Court decisions:


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Ralph Deeds profile image

      Ralph Deeds 7 years ago from Birmingham, Michigan

      In his dissent, portions of which he read from the bench, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said there was no compelling reason to overturn a century’s worth of Supreme Court decisions that had affirmed the prohibition on resale maintenance agreements.

      “The only safe predictions to make about today’s decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail and that it will create considerable legal turbulence as lower courts seek to develop workable principles,” he wrote. “I do not believe that the majority has shown new or changed conditions sufficient to warrant overruling a decision of such long standing.”

    • George J Hardy profile image

      George J Hardy 7 years ago from Southern New Jersey

      Items are only worth what some one is willing to pay for them. When the benefits of price collude with perceived value the price means nothing. No one forces anyone to pay set prices, yet they do; blame it on human nature which the justices understand very well and are beholden to their masters, not principles or the constitution.