+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: GENERAL (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-100.html)
+--- Forum: Rants & Raves (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: WSWA spins the Court Ruling (/thread-13562.html)
- Botafogo - 05-16-2005
Do you think Juanita Duggans (WSWA Spokes-Hole) has to get one of those wet naps treated wit Preparation H to soothe her backside after a blast of putrid hot air like this? Did anyone else see the excellent piece on 60 Minutes last night called "On Bullshit"? This may require that professor to write Volume 2!
WSWA's spin on the ruling:
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS STATES' BROAD AUTHORITY
TO REGULATE ALCOHOL
States Must Treat In-State and Out-of-State Alcohol Producers the Same: Court Holds Three-Tier System: "Unquestionably Legitimate"
WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 16, 2005)-The Supreme Court today upheld a state's right to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol within its own borders but said states must also treat in-state and out-of-state alcohol producers the same.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Court struck down laws in Michigan and New York that restricted out-of-state alcohol producers from bypassing the states' regulatory regimes that require face-to-face transactions. In doing so, the Court rejected the states' argument that in-state producers could be more easily regulated and, therefore, could be permitted to ship via mail order or over the Internet.
Today's ruling forces states to decide whether to allow everyone or no one to sell alcohol through the mail or over the Internet.
Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy said, the three-tier system is "unquestionably legitimate."
The Court embraced a state's right to protect its residents and watch over the way alcohol is sold and distributed within its borders.
"'The Twenty-first Amendment grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system.' A State which chooses to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol altogether could bar its importation; and, as our history shows, it would have to do so to make its laws effective," Justice Kennedy added.
"The Court today affirmed a state's right to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol and said in doing so they must treat in-state, out-of-state and presumably out-of-country producers all the same," President and CEO Juanita D. Duggan said. "That means states have a choice between supporting face-to-face transactions by someone licensed to sell alcohol or opening up the floodgates."
"State policies are protected under the Twenty-first Amendment when they treat liquor produced out of state, the same as its domestic equivalent," Justice Kennedy added.
Justice Thomas, writing for the dissent, said the majority made a "mistake" in ignoring the history and purpose of the 21st Amendment.
More than 30 states had sided with New York and Michigan arguing that the existing controls allow local officials to place limits on the number of vendors licensed to sell within a state; enable officials to investigate meaningfully who those vendors will be; empower states to better enforce their laws regarding illegal sales, particularly sales to minors; and provide concrete assurance that those privileged to sell alcohol actually collect the required taxes.
"WSWA supports state efforts to strengthen - not weaken - alcohol laws by making all producers play from the same set of rules that ensure accountable, responsible alcohol sales," Duggan said. "Face-to-face ID checks by those licensed to sell alcohol are the best way to do that."
- hotwine - 05-16-2005
Glad I wasn't watching. Probably spared the TV.
- Botafogo - 05-16-2005
Actually, Hotside, it was a wonderful piece by Morely Safer about how a Harvard Philosophy professor got so fed up with all the bullshit in advertising, politics and daily conversation that he wrote a short (76 pages) scholarly book about it and it is a run away best seller!
His central thesis is that LYING implies the person telling the lie knows the truth and chooses to use falsehood to further his goals while the BULLSHITTER has already drunk the koolaid so to speak...
- wineguruchgo - 05-16-2005
This is what bothers me. What do you want to bet that some states are going to ban the selling of alcohol over the internet all together.
"The Court today affirmed a state's right to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol and said in doing so they must treat in-state, out-of-state and presumably out-of-country producers all the same," President and CEO Juanita D. Duggan said. "That means states have a choice between supporting face-to-face transactions by someone licensed to sell alcohol or opening up the floodgates."
- Bucko - 05-16-2005
This isn't the great victory some wine people are hailing.
Michigan is already beating the drum to stop in-state shipments of wine just to stop out-of-state shipments of same. It is a "cut your nose off to spite your face" approach.
It may hurt consumers more than it helps them. I hope this is not the case. It will be an interesting subject to follow.
- Jackie - 05-17-2005
Yes. States may choose to ban all direct shipments but imagine what we'd be saying if the decision had gone 5-4 the other way... The Curmudgeon would be scowling all the way from whereever he landed...
Secondly, the national press is focusing on the positive aspects of this decision for wine loving consumers. If consumers see this decision as giving them the ability to order wine from any winery anywhere, especially via the Internet, they may just make a fuss when their state lawmakers try to take this away again, i.e. by prohibiting ALL direct shipments. That's what the 8 states that now allow in-state wine shipments but prohibit out-of-state wine shipments will have to do, since their current laws are now unconstitutional.
BTW, May 14th (Saturday past) was Bobby Darin's birthday. Some of Jerry's kids will still know what that means. Kind of appropriate that this ruling comes out now.
Jackie
[This message has been edited by Jackie (edited 05-17-2005).]
- winoweenie - 05-17-2005
Forgot to post on that Jackie. Curmy was hoisting a glass of 75 SCMV pinot (French Oak) and rockin'back and forth and smiling wide. WW
- Kcwhippet - 05-17-2005
One spin on the opinion makes it that this ruling also strikes down reciprocity laws.
- Bucko - 05-17-2005
Not really, KC. They fall under some such nonsense in law as dicta. It isn't law, but may lead to it if someone wants to push the issue.
This is from a lawyer friend of mine in LA (you may know him as Bruce L):
It's important to understand that in a long opinion (73 pages, with dissent), the Court is likely to throw out a lot of commentary on side issues. The reciprocity discussion you mentioned WAS NOT part of the actual holding, and it arguably WAS NOT required by the Court to reach its holding.
In legalese, it's what lawyers refer to as "dicta." In regular-speech, it means that the comments don't necessarily go to the heart of the decision, and thus do not necessarily bind future courts.
In other words, the Court did NOT rule that reciprocal laws on wine sales were unconstitutional.
And Jackie, unfortunately I hear Michigan is already moving to stop intrastate shipping to protect against interstate shipping. Politicians do irresponsible things, eh?
- Zinner - 05-18-2005
Consumers can influence things when the states pass bad legislation. At one point, Georgia passed the felony law and there was such an uproar from consumers that they had to go back and come up with something that allowed limited shipments.