Click to be added or removed.Supreme Court gets it right wine ping.
Interesting in the way the votes fell.
Interesting ideological mixing on this decision. And Thomas and Scalia didn't agree. This was the right decision imo.
wine is good
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.
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
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.
Hopefully, I will be able to get some good wine into Utah, most of the state liquor stores stock nothing but plonk.
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.
Great! Since my son moved from Michigan it has been dificult getting Fenn Valley Wine (450 mile drive).
"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.
http://www.smokymountainwinery.com/
My wifes favorite. A sweet wine.
This is clearly a direct interstate commerce issue, which is one of the few areas the feds Constitutionally can direct. States that don't want out-of-state winery deliveries can simply ban in-state wine deliveries, so they still have ultimate control.
Good ruling.
This decision still allows a state to allow or disallow direct shipments of alcohol. It just doesn't allow the states to discriminate against out of state businesses. A dry county can still remain dry. Of course, this decision says nothing about whether a state can prohibit a common carrier from transporting alcohol shipments through a dry county or state to deliver them to wet areas.
This type of disintermediation is truly one of the great things about the Internet. Whereas one is likely to be able to find generic goods with little effort, selling and purchasing specialty goods with limited production is another matter entirely.
So the pretty people and the elitists agree this is fine for wine.
Not so though, but hell no, for those cigarette sucking hoi polloi types buying out of state to avoid taxes. It's for the children you know.
State's rights, schmate's rights
Looks like really good news for the Costco case against the state of washington.
But to be fair, costco was already confident they would win.
Click to be added or removed.Supreme Court gets it right wine ping.
Wine ping - added to list sorry I missed.