when I heard reports of the latest SCOTUS assault on consumers. According to our esteemed conservative majority, there is less of a need today to prevent manufacturers from price fixing than there was a century ago, before "big box retailers" and decades of merger waves consolidated both ends of the manufacturer-to-retailer path to a select few companies.
I couldn't stop laughing. Of course they ruled in favor of corporate profits over consumer budgets. I know the justices don't shop at Wal-Mart, but a lot, and I mean a lot, of Americans do. If the manufacturers it purchases from can set higher prices at Wal-Mart's few major competitors, Wal-Mart gets to raise prices while still advertising "Always Low Prices. Always."
During the Sam Alito hearings, a conservative colleague at work insisted that if I believed that Alito was a competent attorney and judge, that was the only criteria he should be judged under. I disagreed, explaining my belief that it is appropriate to determine whether a SCOTUS nominee believes that corporations should have more rights than individuals. I still believe that. I wonder whether rising prices will make a dent on anything besides my colleague's wallet.
Oh yes, later laughter: Steve Benen sums it up this way: "Ultimately, of the five controversial rulings this week, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in three, and Alito wrote the other two. I guess it's one of those elections-have-consequences moments, isn't it?"