The Wine Issue at the US Supreme Court

------------

Why do you say it's "not an easy question"? The crux of the matter is: "gave states considerable power to regulate the transport of alcoholic beverages.". What are the particulars of "considerable powers"? Could some of them be unconstitutional?

This should be a fairly cut and dried matter: Protectionism vs. Free Trade - but someone is trying to obfuscate the issue.

Please don't tell me I'm wrong! =8^0

I, for one, would like the United States legal code, when addressing matters that encompass _most_ of our United States, to be more uniform within our borders. Therefore, I am on the side of the small wineries, and against the distributors, on this issue.

Note my bias: I make wine that I intend to sell to retailers or customers directly. Still, I think I'm on the correct side of this issue. Why do you, the consumers*, need an extra couple or more sets of hands imposed in the transaction between you and the winery when it isn't necessary or voluntary, and contributes nothing to the goods sold except ?XTRA _CO$T_?

[ *Or _I_ for that matter, when I'm shopping for some wine! ]

We'll know in December, but I expect a ruling that permits wineries to freely conduct interstate commerce directly to end users, at least by mail. That would only _slightly_ damage the big distributors, but the small wineries would benefit _greatly_.

The fact that this is going to the Supreme Court is quite significant. Do we know which among the 9 Justices like(s) wine?

Crossin' my fingers and nose on this one...

Tom S

Economic protectionism between the states will be the sticking issue. This cannot be allowed. Therefore I think that is what the court will actually rule on none of the specific cases.

They will then send this -remand back to the lower courts with the ruling....

-if any shipping of wine and spirits are allowed in intrastate than you must allow interstate.

This will force the state to decide what is right for them.

This way the federal government can split the ruling while leaving the outcome to each state.

There was a strong move in Congress to pass a federal anti-shipping bill several years ago but its author, Strom Thurmond, is now dust. I believe the court's view will represent the right wing Christian Coalition that put them on the bench and avoid striking down the paragraph in the 21st amendment that allows states to impose these laws. The simple way to do this is to remand it back to the state. The Supremes could be accused of making laws if they do anything else.

Now there is Ken Starr who thought he was more important than the president awhile back. Maybe he has some tricks to prevent the simple solution.

Tom, It's not an easy _legal_ question. The Constitution specifically cedes its authority to any Amendments, thus the Commerce Clause has generally been held to be subordinate to the 21st Amendment's granting the regulation of alcohol commerce to the States. The 21st Amendment CANNOT be unconstitutional specifically because it IS the Constitution. However, the Supremes could rule that various forces within the States (i.e., distributors) have corrupted these rules for their own economic gain, and that it therefore constitutes an illegal support for monopolistic activities. Don't hold your breath, though. I think that Dick's prediction is on the money...

Mark Lipton

Mark, my only concern is that the courts even decided to hear the case. In so many situations like this they do nothing.

Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there cannot be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That said since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear the case?

You got me, Dick. FWIW, this current court (1994-present) is as unpredictable a Supreme Court as I've seen in my lifetime. My only guess is that someone feels that there's an angle to this case that hasn't already been addressed ad nauseum in previous decisions. Either that, or Ken Starr has bought off 5 Justices. ;-)

Mark Lipton

Look at the conspiracy theory:

1) Religous right is behind this. 2) The court rules to support state rights 3) The court rules to avoid economic protectionism 4) Remand to lower courts letting each state decide what poison the administer 5) In the wording of the ruling have something there to back in to roe v wade that supports state rights on abortion laws. 6) Affects more then wine.

That would be my guess if I were doing JFK--Oliver Stone method.

The end:-)

On Fri, 28 May 2004 02:53:52 GMT, Vino wrote: How many wine

I meant "more" of course.

To reply, add "x" between letters and numbers of e-mail address.

Haven't the lower courts been inconsistent in the "in state vs. out of state wineries" question? I believe that one decision said it was okay to discriminate against out of state wineries, ie allow direct shipping for in state wineries, and disallow it for out of state wineries. Other decisions have said that states could not discriminate.

Given that the Supreme Court wants the plaintiffs to confine their arguments to this question, it sounds like the Court wishes to rule on this narrow question.

I suspect the Supreme Court will continue to allow state to regulate alcohol sales and distribution, but will rule that states cannot treat out of state wineries differently than those located in state. In this case, states could still choose to disallow all direct shipping.

I don't see how this case has anything to do with other issues, eg. Roe vs Wade, Christianity, or even internet sales in general?

It is unlikely the Court will accept Michigan's claim that the three-tier system promotes competition. There is not an economist outside the liquor industry who would support such a position. But I don't think the Court is trying to rule (at least in this case) whether the three-tier system stifles competition.

Tom Schellberg

For reasons I cannot explain I do not accept this on surface level that the supreme court is looking at this for reasons stated. One or more than one of the justices want to define states rights.

That is the very essence of other rulings.

Guess I have seen one to many Oliver Stone movies.

If they allow the states to make their own decisions in this case, what happens is rampant protectionism that is inconsistent because each state does it the way they think will best benefit them? Is this wrong? depends on how one views the Constitution. Traditionally, the Court would say that the states cannot engage in that type of activity and invoke the "Dormant Commerce Clause" as reasoning to this effect. However, I would say that -at the very least- Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas will uphold the states' rights to engage in this type of economic protectionism as they tend to apply a more Federalist viewpoint when adjudicating these matters.

K

wow, adjudicating, thats a big word to digest:-)

I do think they will uphold states rights, but not sure in a day of free trade that they can allow economic protectionism. That will be the question.