RPM should be presumed to be harmful to competition until a manufacturer has factually shown that its use of RPM benefits consumers more than it harms them.
Dick Durbin
The Public Record
Richard Durbin, commonly known as Dick Durbin, is an American politician serving as the senior United States senator from Illinois since 2005. A member of the Democratic Party, he has held various leadership roles, including Senate Majority Whip. Durbin has been a prominent advocate for issues such as healthcare reform, immigration policy, and gun control. He has also played a significant role in negotiations on budget and appropriations matters in the Senate.
The Supreme Court has decided to repeat an already failed experiment with RPM that flaunts congressional intent and harms consumers.
This is bad economic and legal policy. It gives excessively short shrift to consumer preferences, the supposed driving force behind the market.
I am pleased to support the nomination of Mr. Lawrence E. Strickling to serve as the next Assistant Secretary for Telecommunications and Information at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Congress did create an exemption, an antitrust exemption, for RPM under State fair trade statutes. However, Congress ultimately graded that a 37-year-old natural experiment--graded it a failure.
According to the logic of the Leegin court, it is preferable to maximize the welfare of conspiring manufacturers and merchants, even though the antitrust laws are designed to put consumer interests first.
All roads lead to Rome. Rome is the Constitution, and what it says about torture.
President Obama, in my opinion, has made some very sound decisions regarding Afghanistan and Iraq.
Guantanamo had become in world public opinion a toxic problem for the United States of America.
Being from the State of California, I have a personal interest in ensuring that this Department does all it can do to protect the welfare of those workers who plant our crops, harvest our vegetables, and put food on the tables of homes…
the answer from me, after 4 years' experience on the Senate Intelligence Committee, it is not even close.
I do not know what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it, and I really do not think she is a criminal if she was told about waterboarding and did nothing.
I think this administration's policy, at least through the CIA Director's sworn testimony, is that they would reserve unto themselves the ability to brief the Commander-in-Chief about a high-value target.
I cannot imagine, after President Bush and President Obama have made these statements publicly and reached that same conclusion, that that is their position.
Waterboarding has never been an appropriate technique for me, and if there are any military members listening out there today, you will be prosecuted if you waterboard a detainee in your charge.
I recall only one instance where a Member--in this case, Senator Rockefeller--was briefed on the wiretap situation.
Voting really is the language of democracy. If you can't vote, you don't count.
Because these issues are so important, we need Justices with intelligence, knowledge of the law, the proper judicial temperament, and a commitment to impartial justice.
You will follow the intent of Congress and will not try to supplant individual judgment that would restrict the protections that Congress has passed for our community.





