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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (104253)	5/16/2005 5:36:36 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

bill... score one for the 'enterprisers' interesting division of votes on the court, don't you think? (particularly surprised at the thomas vote) :) news.moneycentral.msn.com Supreme Court rules on direct wine sales May 16, 2005 4:20:00 PM ET By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - States cannot ban direct out-of-state wine shipments if they allow their wineries to sell directly to consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a decision that could lead to lower prices and more easily available choices. In a 5-4 vote toasted by a group representing wine lovers and small wineries, the high court struck down such bans for unconstitutionally discriminating against interstate commerce. The ruling could affect the laws in many of the more than 20 states that ban or restrict direct out-of-state wine sales. Industry officials said 27 states now allowed such direct wine shipments, with sales often made over the Internet. Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court majority that the laws at issue from Michigan and New York were designed to give in-state wineries a competitive advantage over wineries located in other states. ``States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses,'' he wrote. ``If a state chooses to allow direct shipment of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms.'' States had justified the bans as necessary to protect minors from alcohol and to be able to collect taxes on the sales. In states with the ban, out-of-state wineries may sell only to wholesalers, who distribute to retailers, who in turn sell to consumers. A U.S. Federal Trade Commission report has found the bans reduce consumer choice and increase wine prices. Direct wine sales to consumers have grown, influenced by an increasing number of small wineries and fewer wine wholesalers. Small wineries may not produce enough wine or have sufficient consumer demand to make it economical for wholesalers to carry their products. The two cases have been watched closely by the wine industry, which has annual U.S. sales of more than $21.6 billion. There are more than 3,700 wineries across the country, according to the industry trade association. Most of them outside the top 25 are small, family-run enterprises. A NATIONAL TOAST TO CELEBRATE A group called Free the Grapes!, representing 300,000 wine lovers and 2,000 wineries, called for a national toast on Monday evening to celebrate the decision. ``We're asking everyone who loves wine to participate -- consumers, winemakers, retailers, restaurateurs, brokers and even wholesalers,'' said Jeremy Benson, the group's executive director. W. Reed Foster, president of a group called Coalition for Free Trade, said, ``In this David versus Goliath battle, the ruling is a triumph for America's family wine farmers.'' Backers of the laws said they would continue to support efforts to keep communities safe from the unregulated sale of alcohol. Juanita Duggan of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America Inc. said states now ``have a choice between supporting face-to-face transactions by someone licensed to sell alcohol or opening up the floodgates.'' Joining Kennedy in the majority opinion were Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented. Thomas wrote that the court majority suggested it believed the decision would enhance consumer welfare and serve the nation well. He said the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition in 1933, and a 1913 federal law ``took those policy choices away from judges and returned them to the states.'' © 2005 Reuters