Not Always Supreme Court!

[Thomas]

Today, the gang hears arguments re, Virginia and NY wine shipping regs.

Be aware: it is a narrow frame, this case. The issue is not whether or not wine (alcohol) can be shipped across state lines, with or without a license. The issue is whether or not state's have the right to allow their alcohol industries to ship to their residents and at the same time prevent alcohol from outside to be shipped into their state. Protectionsim is the issue.

Even if the Supreme Justices (read sarcasm in there) vote down prevailing state restrictions, it will not open the floodgates across the U.S. NY will likely change its law to allow all shipping, but that is because NY has a lot of wineries and they would be quite annoyed if their present shipping within the state were curtailed, because the S Court is likely to say that a state has a choice: either allow all shipping or cut off all shipping--no halfway.

States like Virginia, with a much smaller wine industry, might not open the gate--they also have a long-standing anti-alcohol stance. I remember the night Virginia became a fully wet state--I was stationed at Andrews AF Base at the time.

[This message has been edited by foodie (edited 12-07-2004).]

[Glass_A_Day]

I have a lot of winerys ship to VA to a family member there. They all said they have a permit to do so. The only one I have run across that wouldn't was Shafer.

[winoweenie]

At last it gets heard by the big guys.Now if only the States Rights to control alcohol is seen to be a restraint of trade. Keeping both eyes crossed. WW

[Thomas]

GAD, the two states that filed with the Supreme Court are NY and MIchigan. But the first state to be represented by an attorney at the SC bar was Virginia--amicus, I guess.

Scalia, that defender of state's rights, is also a wine drinker. he came right out of the gate to show that he is skeptical of the states' agruments...I love the world sometimes!