Does this mean everybody? - Printable Version
+- WineBoard (http://wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: RESOURCES AND OTHER STUFF (/forum-300.html)
+--- Forum: Wine and Politics (/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Does this mean everybody? (/thread-2904.html)
- Georgie - 05-16-2005 08:58 AM
I just saw this on the internet. Would some of you politically savvy people explain it to me, the apolitical person?
- hotwine - 05-16-2005 09:20 AM
I just read it, too. It seems to indicate that states may prohibit all wine shipments directly to consumers, whether in-state or out-of-state; but may not treat out-of-state producers differently from their own in-state producers. So states may totally ban all direct-to-consumer shipments, or allow them all, but not parse it to favor in-state producers.
- winoweenie - 05-16-2005 09:35 AM
Just heard on public radio the great news. From the report the Supreme Court has removed the 21st amendment giving control of out-of-state shipments at the discretion of the individual states. How the fine print will be interpreted is anybodys guess. Bless you " Free The Graapes ". WW
- wondersofwine - 05-16-2005 09:47 AM
I think it pertains only to winery to consumer shipments. I still might not be able to order from a retailer in New York or Chicago, etc.
[This message has been edited by wondersofwine (edited 05-16-2005).]
- hotwine - 05-16-2005 09:55 AM
It's disturbing that one of the Supremes whom I respect the most, Clarence Thomas, in his dissenting opinion bought into the blather about minors being able to buy wine over the net. I now expect a full-court press by the wholesalers to lobby state legislators to reinstate a total ban on all direct shipments to consumers.
FTG has done yeoman work on the issue, but "it ain't over till the fat lady sings" (to quote my all-time favorite sports writer, Dan Cook, a local fellow. Met up with him at a drug store a couple of weeks ago.).
[This message has been edited by hotwine (edited 05-16-2005).]
- Kcwhippet - 05-16-2005 11:21 AM
Here's the full opinion. http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/03-1116p.zo.pdf
As others have mentioned, there is going to be a big fall out on this. What this does for the present, however, is invalidate the Michigan and New York laws/regulations as unconstitutional. At best, this may mean that consumers in those states may be able to order directly from wineries, at least until the states enact legislation that makes it illegal for ANYONE to ship to consumers. Even at that, you still have to find a shipper that will handle the goods - UPS probably won't and Fed Ex is a problem, too. Im sure there will be a lot of wrangling and quick work by legislators to enact some sort of laws that will keep the WSWA contributions flowing into their coffers. This fight isn't over yet, folks, but the picture does look a bit brighter, at least for now. Keep your fingers crossed, especially you folks here in MA. Time to start writing your local legislators again. Let them know where their votes come from.
- hotwine - 05-17-2005 07:55 AM
Two good articles plus an editorial in the WSJ this AM, all celebrating a victory for free enterprise. However, some states' officials are already talking about re-imposing a blanket ban on all shipments directly to consumers..... Michigan for one. And wouldn't be surprised if NJ follows suit. Bureaucrats (and dems) have a hard time understanding how tax revenues actually increase when restrictions are lifted.