Court Strikes Down Ban on Wine Shipments

AP via Yahoo ^ | May 16, 2005 | HOPE YEN

[jwalsh07]

Interesting in the way the votes fell.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Interesting ideological mixing on this decision. And Thomas and Scalia didn't agree. This was the right decision imo.

[babble-on]

wine is good

[notigar]

wine IS good.

[coconutt2000]

I've so been waiting for the courts to finally make this ruling. Not that I'm going to order anything... I'm not a wine drinker, but I've always thought the practice was unconstitutional.

[Revelation 911]

The 5-4 decision overturns laws in New York

now where did i put the address of that fellow from WVa who made blueberry mead?

Im glad this got overturned - there are so many good wineries in the finger lakes who cantsell you their product, except through the liquor stores - and some of the better stuff never hits the shelves because its sold out when they have winery tours

[agitator]

Next on the hit parade is every state extorting the names and addresses of customers from Useless Parcel Service, FedEx, and the merchants themselves so they can send you a bill for the tax. The end result of this is going to be the establishment of automatic reporting of every delivery of anything to your house so the state can charge you use/sales tax. You heard it here first.

[Revelation 911]

wine is good

we just had sauerbraden last night with plenty of red wine in the mix

wine is good

[Sthitch]

Yes, wine is VERY good.

[hunter112]

Hopefully, I will be able to get some good wine into Utah, most of the state liquor stores stock nothing but plonk.

[July 4th]

This is a good decision, but in the states that don't want to acquiesce, they'll just apply the more stringent guidelines to the IN-state businesses.

[golfisnr1]

Great! Since my son moved from Michigan it has been dificult getting Fenn Valley Wine (450 mile drive).

[Red Badger]

Only GOOD WINE is GOOD........

[Sacajaweau]

This ruling has very broad implications. I do agree with it.

[untrained skeptic]

"In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the ruling needlessly overturns long-established regulations aimed partly at protecting minors. State regulators under the 21st Amendment have clear authority to regulate alcohol as the see fit, he wrote."

How can a regulation that bars out of state businesses from selling wine directly protect minors when the in state businesses can still sell directly?

I'm getting less and less impressed with Thmoms' logic in his statements these days.

[vollmond]

I love wine, but I've discovered that Reds are triggering migraines for me. That includes Ports as well. I can still drink Whites, but it's just not the same.

[Ron in Acreage]

http://www.smokymountainwinery.com/

My wifes favorite. A sweet wine.

[Amalie]

I would agree with the minority in this case; the feds are taking way too much away from the states, period. I don't see it so much as an issue of free trade or alcohol use as I do in what Thomas stated very plainly....

"The court does this nation no service by ignoring the textual commands of the Constitution and acts of Congress"

We are moved rapidly away from this being a group of national states to being one big socialist collective. If the states are devoid of decision making, what is the use of having them?....

[Sthitch]

Before the ruling there was quite a bit of debate on a wine board where I post concerning how the court would rule. The discussion was split on whether they would side with the Commerce Clause or the 21st Amendment. Many on that board are lawyers so it was interesting to hear their arguments either way. While all on that board wanted the ruling to go the way it did many saw the arguments supporting the 21st Amendment as valid. I just hate the "what about the children" argument in his decent.