Abstract
This paper addresses why Robert Bork’s The Antitrust Paradox appears to have had such influence on the Supreme Court, leading the Court to largely adopt the Chicago School analysis of antitrust issues. It attributes this influence to Bork’s endorsement of the per se prohibition of price fixing — not embraced by others of the Chicago School — which Bork claimed required the Court to rethink its treatment of vertical restraints. The paper also attributes the influence to Bork’s emphasis on neutral principles for judicial decisionmaking, to Bork’s service as Solicitor General, to the delayed publication of his book until after that service, and to the appointment of John Paul Stevens to the Court. Though it has not been generally publicized, Stevens, like Bork, was heavily influenced by Aaron Director and was well aware of the many economic criticisms of Court antitrust opinions published in this Journal.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
