“Your deeds, good or bad, will repay you in kind”

Justices End 96-Year-Old Ban on Price Floors

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.

There simply is no issue under the sun about which Conservatives talk out both sides of their mouths and probably another part of their anatomy as well. Setting prices by collusion with your competitors is monopolistic, ant-competition and many other things, but it is not free market capitalism. Like Bush and a complicit Republican Congress’s decision to take the competitive element out of drug pricing for Medicare this is Republican socialism. The redistribution of income upward to those with the most money and most power. Not to mention an in-your-face case of Republican judicial activism doing an end round of anti-trust legislation that while not perfect was in effect as America under went possibly the largest economic expansion of any nation in history,

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.

Which says two things: there is no bottom line consistency in the law. Which in turn means you can count on more lawsuits by businesses directed at other other businesses because the law has been declared  officially ambiguous. These 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 Of Lawyers (Of Course)

The 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 benefit the consumers rather than the lawyers? In essence, what they’ve done here is refused to uphold the existing laws and rewritten them 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”.

If you still think that Republicans are all about free market capitalism then you’re either delusional or you enjoy being part of their great political charade. I was reading an Independent’s blog that leans Republican today and like a 70’s acid flashback sure enough a commenter warned the blogger not to vote Democrat because they’re all socialists. Talk about not paying attention. Republicans have simply made large corporations the collective in an unholy alliance with government as their combination babysitter accountant price fixer.

Some very good post on the Court’s segregation decision, Lawyers, Guns, and MoneyNotes On The School Integration Cases

Nothing in the text of the Constitution compels these programs to be struck down. Essentially, Roberts’s plurality opinion rests on the assertion that racial classifications intended to perpetuate a caste system should be considered the precise legal equivalent of racial classifications intended to remedy segregation. This is exceptionally unpersuasive, and also makes it almost impossible to actually remedy the ongoing de facto segregation of American school systems, much of which has roots in various forms of state discrimination (not just formal apartheid in the South, but the drawing of arbitrary school district lines to create segregated systems, local ordinances encouraging residential segregation, etc.)

Balkinization sees some hope in Justice Kennedy’s limiting concurrence – The Parents Involved decision– Swann Song or Bakke for our times?

Kennedy acknowledges that racial diversity and avoiding racial isolation in schools are compelling interests that might justify racially conscious school assignment policies. On this question he disagrees with the plurality and agrees with the dissenters.

[ ]..The final thing worth noting about the opinion is that because Kennedy takes a position in between the plurality and the dissenters, his position may end up serving the same function as Justice Powell’s Bakke opinion did. It will set the boundaries of future debate about the scope of race conscious policies. All this, of course, depends on new appointments to the Court. But if the Court’s composition does not change in the near future (or if Justice Stevens retires and is replaced by a liberal justice), Kennedy’s approach will be what everyone will be talking about and working around.

Republican icon Ann Coulter has never been particularly relevant. She yells incoherent insults from the cheap seats and its gotten her enough attention and money to be able to afford sitting around expensive Miami Beach night clubs  snickering at the rubes gullible enough to buy her books – Watch Ann Coulter lose it

She’s on the verge of losing it, even though she’s hardly being challenged at all. She walks around calling people “fags,” mocking their dead children, wishing that they were murdered, then when people respond by saying “uh, you’re kind of mean,” Ann flips out over the level of venom that’s directed against her.

All she ever contributed to the national discourse was lies, hate, and ignorance. “Your deeds, good or bad, will repay you in kind.” – Galatians VI (King James Version)

The Whitehouse exerts executive privilege in not responding to Congressional subpoenas,

WASHINGTON (Thursday, June 28) – The White House on Thursday asserted executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas seeking information relating to investigations into the firings of several U.S. Attorneys and politicization within the Department of Justice. Below is Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy’s comment on the White House’s claim, as well as his remarks from the Committee’s business meeting this morning.

The right-wing Captain’s Quarter’s draws a bizarre circle of logic and contradicts himself, The White House Gets Tough With Congress, And Vice Versa, Posted by Ed Morrissey at June 28, 2007 4:14 PM

This still strikes me as a scandal in search of any real wrongdoing. Despite having chewed on this for months, Congress has found only incompetence. No one thinks that the President or the Attorney General can’t dismiss prosecutors, regardless of how badly they did it. Critics of the administration want to find nefarious plots to cover up the administration’s supposed crimes, but even the terminated attorneys don’t claim that. One, David Yglesias, alleges that Pete Domenici (R-NM) got him fired for not aggressively pursuing corruption charges against two Democrats, which might be more properly pursued in the Senate Ethics Committee.

So far, though, incompetence and cronyism is all they’ve found, and they have no probable cause to pursue executive-branch materials or testimony. (emphasis mine)

He lists one example of probable cause to proceed with an investigation and simultaneously says there is no probable cause while also conveniently side stepping the other facts as we know them. The issue is not in the least about the President’s right to hire and fire U.S, attorney’s which the Captain fails to acknowledge. Right-wing playbook rule invoked – any wrong doing by Republicans followed by an investigation is automatically termed a fishing expedition. Which is the same thing as saying that if a police officer that sees a bloody shirt on a front lawn and gets a warrant to search the house he’s just on a fishing expedition, he doesn’t really have probable cause that a crime has occurred – bloody shirts on lawns are quite common. Again ignoring U.S. attorney scandal, CBS Evening News did not report on Goodling’s testimony

During her testimony, Goodling stated that she may have “crossed the line” by taking “inappropriate political considerations into account” in hiring career Justice Department officials, potentially a violation of the law. Goodling, a former aide to Gonzales, also suggested that former Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty had lied under oath and that Gonzales may have done so as well during his testimony on the scandal.

A Justice Department official has testified she may have violated the law and that other officials who testified probably lied. Nope in Republican world no probable cause to continue an investigation or issue supeonas. The Whitehouse isn’t cooperating because they’re pure as the driven snow and their feelings are hurt that someone thinks they might have used a political litmus test as the major criteria for which attorneys stayed and which got the boot. Ex-Justice Aide Admits Politics Affected Hiring

Monica M. Goodling, the former Justice official, told a House panel that she regretted favoring applicants with Republican credentials for lower level prosecutor jobs or prestigious postings at Justice headquarters, actions that could violate federal employment laws.

“I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account,” Ms. Goodling said. “And I regret those mistakes.”

[ ]…Ms. Goodling testified under a grant of immunity from prosecution, which the Judiciary panel issued after two months of wrangling, because her lawyers said she would refuse to answer questions on grounds that to do so would violate her constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Last I heard you don’t seek immunity from prosecution because your answers are just part of a fishing expedition.

Talking Points memo timeline of events in the U.S. Attornet scandal.

Rudy Tutti conspiracy theories redux, Giuliani’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory