Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (17913)	12/7/2004 3:34:08 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

Supreme Court hears Internet wine case - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 8:13:54 PM afxpress.com WASHINGTON (AFX) - A coalition of small wine producers urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to strike down as unconstitutional state prohibitions on the direct shipment of out-of-state wine Meanwhile, attorneys for Michigan and New York argued the laws are necessary to ensure adequate policing and regulation of the industry In Granholm v. Heald, which consolidated similar cases from the two states, the high court is considering whether states have the right to bar direct-to-consumer wine shipments from other jurisdictions, while permitting them for in-state wineries. The case pits two constitutional principles against each other, namely the right of Congress to alone regulate interstate commerce vs. the 21st Amendment. The latter repealed nationwide Prohibition, but gave individual states wide powers to decide whether and what their residents get to drink -- and how much they'll pay for that privilege. Lower courts have been spilt on the issue Michigan and New York attorneys argued before eight justices -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist is out ill -- that the 21st Amendment trumps all other interests and permits the state to limit sales to out-of-state customers. "Alcohol is different" from other products, Thomas Casey, Michigan's solicitor general, told reporters on the courthouse steps after oral arguments. More than 30 state attorneys general have sided with Michigan and New York. Five others, including the one from California -- which produces about 90 percent of all American wine -- have taken the shippers' side But the winemakers say that states cannot use alcohol regulations to explicitly discriminate against makers from other jurisdictions in order to protect an in-state industry "It's not different for purposes of discrimination," said Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of the Stanford Law School, and a lawyer for the shippers Several justices questioned the rationale behind the discrimination. "You have a very substantial burden to show that this discrimination ... is justified," Justice Anthony Kennedy said to Casey And Justice Stephen Breyer told him that if there was case law stating that discrimination was permitted, "now is the time to point (those cases) out." The states argued that they would not be able to properly enforce laws prohibiting underage drinkers from buying alcohol if out-of-states wine sales are permitted "The state can't meaningfully oversee the sales of alcohol with an out-of-state entity," said Caitlin Halligan, solicitor general of New York, told the court Halligan said New York law allows out-of-state entities to set up a physical presence in New York so inspectors can come and inspect the warehouse and compare physical holdings with business records The wine producers say that is impossible and unrealistic for small wineries to do in all 50 states and thus inherently discriminatory. See also interview: Wine case key for Net commerce Casey argued that allowing wine sales over the Internet would lead to sales of other types of alcohol, which are now entirely banned, even within state lines "If we lose, the whole system of alcohol regulation in this country is in jeopardy," Casey told reporters.