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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (115357)	5/22/2005 11:41:47 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793895

This is one of the cases where I find the constitution unclear. Such situations give judges more latitude without them becoming truly activist. I agree with the results of this case in practical terms, but a non-activist case could be made for deciding either way. Last week's ruling divided the justices into unlikely cohorts, thereby providing a timely reminder that concepts such as "judicial activism," "strict construction" and "original intent" have limited value in explaining or predicting the court's behavior. In some cases, or even certain areas of law. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (115357)	5/22/2005 1:12:32 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793895

George Will's point is not a good one. The decision has nothing to do with politics or high doctrinal concepts. It has to do with history and discrimination. Once again, we see a failure to drill down into the details of a case simply to make a rhetorical point which holds no water. I generally regard Will highly; he's way off base here. The Heald decision rests on the history of the 18th and the 21st Amendment and everything that lead to their enactment. Without going into it too deeply, the history suggests that the 21st Amendment simply allowed the States to regulate the sale, transportation and importation of liquor, but was never intended to allow them to discriminate in favor of in-state producers. The Court acknowledged a number of decisions which held otherwise but characterized them as not taking the history of the 21st Amendment into consideration. It has now reconciled them, properly IMO. The dissenters used an argument that made no sense to me, i.e., that the 21st Amendment's provisions by their nature allowed the States to interfere with Interstate Commerce. What they missed is the fact that there was no rational purpose behind the Michigan and New York laws except to promote in-state wineries to the detriment of out of state producers. It was economic discrimination, pure and simple, which the Court obviously found offensive. On balance, I think the majority got it right, though I admit I am clueless regarding the historical reasons advanced by either side. Big doctrinal deal? No way. A run-of-the-mill case which will have little legacy. And this is why Scalia--the most ferocious advocate of strict constructionism on the Court--joined the so-called "liberal" majority. Shame on George for improperly stoking the partisan fires. I'm thankful to the Supremes for letting me buy wine on the internet, sometimes at deep, deep discounts, sometimes without having to pay a sales tax. If there is any doctrinal point to be made, it seems to me that the proper one to note is that the Supreme Court majority came out in favor of capitalism and free enterprise. Its the dissenters who are bunch of pinko commies who probably drink nothing stronger than lemonade.

To: Lane3 who wrote (115357)	5/22/2005 2:18:49 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793895

The wine-shipper's case was the clearest violation of the Commerce Clause I've seen since the early 19th century. While "in violation of the laws whereof" can't be used to justify violating the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme to mere law. If the laws prohibited importation of contaminated wine, or wine produced by child labor, which is within the police powers of the state, that's different. Economic protectionism of domestic industry isn't within the police powers of the states, especially not when it violates the Commerce Clause. That's old news.