Supreme Court, and wine.

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
User avatar
Victor Hong
Posts: 19739
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm
Location: Banana Republic of ‘Merica
Been thanked: 13 times

Supreme Court, and wine.

#1 Post by Victor Hong »

WineHunter.

User avatar
Kirk.Grant
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3691
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 1:29 pm
Location: Bangor, Maine
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#2 Post by Kirk.Grant »

OK...I'll follow your instructions (for now), do you want to just post the link?
Cellartracker:Kirk Grant

YLee
Posts: 2069
Joined: September 20th, 2018, 8:09 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#3 Post by YLee »

I clicked it and got a virus [tease.gif]
-¥ 0 ñ 9

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39247
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#4 Post by D@vid Bu3ker »

A case to be argued before the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday may decide whether states can prohibit retail wine shops from shipping to consumers in another state. A ruling might even affect access to small-production beers and spirits, although it's not clear whether it would extend beyond wine.

The case, Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, does not hinge directly on the issue of interstate retail sales. It instead is focused on the effort of Total Wine & More, a national retail chain of almost 200 stores, to open an outlet in Tennessee. A group of retailers in the state sued in an effort to block the move, arguing that Tennessee law required the retail owners to be residents of the state.

Yet the court’s decision, many believe, will have major implications for interstate wine sales. It could open a wellspring of opportunities to consumers, allowing wine lovers to scour the country for hard-to-find bottles and the best retail deals. Or it could put to rest any further effort to broaden access to fine wine.

“We’re about 90 percent sure it will affect interstate shipping,” said Daniel Posner, the managing partner of Grapes the Wine Company, in White Plains, N.Y.


We'll see...SCOTUS is hard to predict on issues without partisan foundations.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#5 Post by Neal.Mollen »

I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
NoahR
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2429
Joined: December 1st, 2013, 1:07 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#6 Post by NoahR »

I spent an hour last night reading the Application for writ of cert and most of the Amicus briefs.

Anyone want to bet a bottle of wine on this?
5-4 in favor of Tennessee and against Total Wine. Possibly 6-3. Would be shocked if it turned out otherwise.

There seems to be lots of jurisprudence supporting a conservative view of the 21st amendment trumping the commerce clause, and I am skeptical that anyone is going to convince the conservative majority that the residency requirement represents true discrimination, which has been the only way that 21st amendment rights to state control of liquor sale and distribution have been curtailed.

Just my guess, as a Constitutional Law Scholar... ;)
Noah Raizman
Washington, DC

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39247
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#7 Post by D@vid Bu3ker »

Hopefully, if Tennessee wins it will be a narrow ruling. Have to be careful of someone like Thomas writing an opinion that says Granholm was improperly decided.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
David K o l i n
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 17824
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 5:29 pm
Location: ChiIl
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#8 Post by David K o l i n »

Neal.Mollen wrote: January 11th, 2019, 6:07 am I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline
He’s not being coy. He likes being abstruse

John A Hunt
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 95
Joined: January 27th, 2015, 7:06 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#9 Post by John A Hunt »

David K o l i n wrote: January 11th, 2019, 6:36 am
Neal.Mollen wrote: January 11th, 2019, 6:07 am I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline
He’s not being coy. He likes being abstruse

To eschew obfuscation, "abstruse" is the proper term where many (including myself) would more likely use "obtuse."

Seems appropriate for any legal discussion to be abstruse when one or both parties are obtuse...



abstruse: difficult to comprehend

obtuse: which comes from the Latin word obtusus, meaning "dull" or "blunt," can describe an angle that is not acute or a person who is mentally "dull" or slow of mind.

User avatar
Craig G
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16617
Joined: March 6th, 2011, 10:57 am
Location: Town of Cats
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#10 Post by Craig G »

Is a bstruse like a dick?
“You need to look down to the bottom shelf where they keep the Fighting Cock” — Corey N.

C. Gle@son

User avatar
Todd F r e n c h
Site Admin
<dfn>Site Admin</dfn>
Posts: 40473
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 8:46 am
Location: San Clemente, CA
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 119 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#11 Post by Todd F r e n c h »

NoahR wrote: January 11th, 2019, 6:16 am I spent an hour last night reading the Application for writ of cert and most of the Amicus briefs.

Anyone want to bet a bottle of wine on this?
5-4 in favor of Tennessee and against Total Wine. Possibly 6-3. Would be shocked if it turned out otherwise.

There seems to be lots of jurisprudence supporting a conservative view of the 21st amendment trumping the commerce clause, and I am skeptical that anyone is going to convince the conservative majority that the residency requirement represents true discrimination, which has been the only way that 21st amendment rights to state control of liquor sale and distribution have been curtailed.

Just my guess, as a Constitutional Law Scholar... ;)
If this happens, it might open the door for other states to follow suit, which would be VERY BAD for wine consumers. States will want their tax revenue, will use this ruling (if it passes as such, as Noah predicts) as basis for their own suit, and the list of states to which you cannot ship will grow and grow, no?
Apparently I'm lazy, have a narrow agenda, and offer little in the way of content and substance (RMP) (and have a "penchant for gossip" -KBI)

Mich@el Ch@ng
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6675
Joined: March 31st, 2017, 9:57 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#12 Post by Mich@el Ch@ng »

Todd F r e n c h wrote: January 11th, 2019, 8:15 am
NoahR wrote: January 11th, 2019, 6:16 am I spent an hour last night reading the Application for writ of cert and most of the Amicus briefs.

Anyone want to bet a bottle of wine on this?
5-4 in favor of Tennessee and against Total Wine. Possibly 6-3. Would be shocked if it turned out otherwise.

There seems to be lots of jurisprudence supporting a conservative view of the 21st amendment trumping the commerce clause, and I am skeptical that anyone is going to convince the conservative majority that the residency requirement represents true discrimination, which has been the only way that 21st amendment rights to state control of liquor sale and distribution have been curtailed.

Just my guess, as a Constitutional Law Scholar... ;)
If this happens, it might open the door for other states to follow suit, which would be VERY BAD for wine consumers. States will want their tax revenue, will use this ruling (if it passes as such, as Noah predicts) as basis for their own suit, and the list of states to which you cannot ship will grow and grow, no?
Doubtful, I think if they did rule for Tennessee it'd be a pretty narrow ruling, at least IMO.

User avatar
Alan Rath
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 22231
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#13 Post by Alan Rath »

Neal.Mollen wrote: January 11th, 2019, 6:07 am I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline
I just get a different version of the Asimov story. Is there actually a WSWA oped somewhere? Would love to read that. Before lunch, so I don't lose it...
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#14 Post by Neal.Mollen »

My mistake. Here's the link; its another Asimov column: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/dini ... sales.html
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Al Osterheld
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7466
Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
Location: SF Bay
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#15 Post by Al Osterheld »

The Granholm decision pointed a way for states to collect sales tax revenue from out of state entities by requiring the entities to obtain a license to ship into the state that makes collecting and remitting sales tax a requirement. This was done in California with the additional requirement of reciprocity for retailers (retailer must be in a state that allows shipments from California retailers). The impediment to liberalized shipping laws is not so much concerns over sales tax revenue as lobbying from local distributors and retail associations.

-Al

User avatar
cjsavino
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 5917
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 5:00 pm
Location: Cranford NJ
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#16 Post by cjsavino »

Is today the day or do we need to wait another week
Chris
Image

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39247
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#17 Post by D@vid Bu3ker »

Only SCOTUS knows for sure.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#18 Post by Neal.Mollen »

cjsavino wrote: June 17th, 2019, 4:03 am Is today the day or do we need to wait another week
The Term theoretically ends next week. Opinions are released on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings and on the third Monday of each sitting, but at the end of the Term, they will sometimes issue opinions on Fridays as well. The Court is sitting today to release orders in pending cases and to take new ones, and I think it quite likely we will see one or more of the 24 pending opinions today. And because they have life tenure and can do whatever the F they want, if need be they can extend the term a week or two.

So basically David is right.

SCOTUSBlog live streams the release of opinions. https://www.scotusblog.com/

The final conference of the Term (when they decide what cases to put on the docket for next year) is on Friday. I have a case up for cert; wish me luck.
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39247
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#19 Post by D@vid Bu3ker »

Good luck!
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#20 Post by Neal.Mollen »

D@vid Bu3ker wrote: June 17th, 2019, 7:21 am Good luck!
Thanks!

4 opinions today, none of them about wine. The double jeopardy case is an interesting one. By a 7-2 vote, the Court reaffirmed the "dual sovereign" exception to the double jeopardy doctrine. As a matter of constitutional law, a person can't be tried twice for the "same offense," but for ages the Court has interpreted this to mean violation of the same law, so if two "sovereigns" (a state and the feds) have a law against the same behavior, each can get a crack at the defendant. What is interesting here is (a) four votes were necessary to take the case but only 2 justices dissented and only one (Gorsuch) would do away with the exception. So why did the other justices voting to review do so just to say "same as it ever was?" (b) Gorsuch's dissent reads like an ACLU brief. Bet a lot of folks didn't see that coming
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39247
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#21 Post by D@vid Bu3ker »

Today's opinions have had a few surprises.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
Troy Stark
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 875
Joined: March 7th, 2012, 9:51 am
Location: Tampa, FL
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#22 Post by Troy Stark »

I have now lived in two states (MN and FL) that supposedly do not allow interstate wine shipments from retailers, yet I've never had an issue receiving wine from certain online retailers.

The articles linked suggest that UPS and FedEx do not accept alcohol shipments bound for the states that do not allow these shipments, but I have received shipments from both carriers. I'm a lawyer but too lazy to look into what loophole might be in play here. I actually suspect it's simply a matter of enforcement being too difficult to implement, so various retailers just roll the dice. Thoughts?
Last edited by Troy Stark on June 17th, 2019, 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Insta: @lofiwineguy

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#23 Post by Neal.Mollen »

Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Gray G
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 691
Joined: August 20th, 2009, 10:25 am
Has thanked: 3 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#24 Post by Gray G »

Neal.Mollen wrote: June 17th, 2019, 9:08 am Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble
+++++
my friends call me Gary, so much time, so little wine, Albanista, K Vinters rocks! MCK, Cattle King, love Gri3v3 Family wines Double Eagle baby! flavors please, non-religious freedom :) egalitarian, non-socialist, non-ITB, paid subscriber of online chat, Going Beserk everyday! "life's not black and white but black and grey"- Graham Greene

Anton D
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 36249
Joined: October 17th, 2013, 11:25 am
Location: Chico, CA
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#25 Post by Anton D »

Neal.Mollen wrote: January 11th, 2019, 6:07 am I have no idea why Victor is being so coy. It is an Op Ed from the president and chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America to this Asimov column:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/dini ... ule=inline
He must have become habituated to his usual style of posting blink links and now needs to up the ante.
Anton Dotson

What is man, when you come to think upon him, but a minutely set, ingenious machine for turning, with infinite artfulness, the fine red wine of Shiraz into urine?

User avatar
AndrewH
Posts: 2994
Joined: May 14th, 2010, 1:34 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#26 Post by AndrewH »

Neal.Mollen wrote: June 17th, 2019, 5:03 am I have a case up for cert; wish me luck.
Seeking or opposing? Either way, good luck (although luck likely better if opposing).
Andrew H e i m e r t

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#27 Post by Neal.Mollen »

AndrewH wrote: June 17th, 2019, 10:29 am
Neal.Mollen wrote: June 17th, 2019, 5:03 am I have a case up for cert; wish me luck.
Seeking or opposing? Either way, good luck (although luck likely better if opposing).
Seeking. The US is seeking cert from the same opinion so odds are much better than usual
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Troy Stark
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 875
Joined: March 7th, 2012, 9:51 am
Location: Tampa, FL
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#28 Post by Troy Stark »

Neal.Mollen wrote: June 17th, 2019, 9:08 am Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble
I removed the names to protect the innocent.
Insta: @lofiwineguy

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#29 Post by Neal.Mollen »

Troy Stark wrote: June 17th, 2019, 11:44 am
Neal.Mollen wrote: June 17th, 2019, 9:08 am Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble
I removed the names to protect the innocent.
Except for yours! [snort.gif]
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Troy Stark
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 875
Joined: March 7th, 2012, 9:51 am
Location: Tampa, FL
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#30 Post by Troy Stark »

Hearsay!
Insta: @lofiwineguy

User avatar
Kevin Porter
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2829
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 11:17 am
Location: Near Philadelphia
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#31 Post by Kevin Porter »

Neal.Mollen wrote: June 17th, 2019, 7:47 am
D@vid Bu3ker wrote: June 17th, 2019, 7:21 am Good luck!
Thanks!

4 opinions today, none of them about wine. The double jeopardy case is an interesting one. By a 7-2 vote, the Court reaffirmed the "dual sovereign" exception to the double jeopardy doctrine. As a matter of constitutional law, a person can't be tried twice for the "same offense," but for ages the Court has interpreted this to mean violation of the same law, so if two "sovereigns" (a state and the feds) have a law against the same behavior, each can get a crack at the defendant. What is interesting here is (a) four votes were necessary to take the case but only 2 justices dissented and only one (Gorsuch) would do away with the exception. So why did the other justices voting to review do so just to say "same as it ever was?" (b) Gorsuch's dissent reads like an ACLU brief. Bet a lot of folks didn't see that coming
I haven’t read Justice Gorsuch’s dissent but I can’t help but wonder if his primary concern is for actors who might receive an executive pardon from federal charges but find themselves subject to state prosecution.

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#32 Post by Neal.Mollen »

Kevin Porter wrote: June 18th, 2019, 6:12 pm
Neal.Mollen wrote: June 17th, 2019, 7:47 am
D@vid Bu3ker wrote: June 17th, 2019, 7:21 am Good luck!
Thanks!

4 opinions today, none of them about wine. The double jeopardy case is an interesting one. By a 7-2 vote, the Court reaffirmed the "dual sovereign" exception to the double jeopardy doctrine. As a matter of constitutional law, a person can't be tried twice for the "same offense," but for ages the Court has interpreted this to mean violation of the same law, so if two "sovereigns" (a state and the feds) have a law against the same behavior, each can get a crack at the defendant. What is interesting here is (a) four votes were necessary to take the case but only 2 justices dissented and only one (Gorsuch) would do away with the exception. So why did the other justices voting to review do so just to say "same as it ever was?" (b) Gorsuch's dissent reads like an ACLU brief. Bet a lot of folks didn't see that coming
I haven’t read Justice Gorsuch’s dissent but I can’t help but wonder if his primary concern is for actors who might receive an executive pardon from federal charges but find themselves subject to state prosecution.
His views were probably popular on PA Avenue
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Jim Brennan
Posts: 5247
Joined: April 17th, 2009, 6:10 pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#33 Post by Jim Brennan »

Doesn't look like anything today on wine either.

User avatar
T. Melloni
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2341
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 9:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#34 Post by T. Melloni »

Jim Brennan wrote: June 24th, 2019, 7:26 am Doesn't look like anything today on wine either.
Today's decision in Iancu v. Brunetti is an interesting one. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 2_e29g.pdf
Funny how a full spectrum of Justices get FUCT under the First Amendment.
Tho m@s (sometimes); You can call me T.

Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines. . .

User avatar
c fu
Moderator
<dfn>Moderator</dfn>
Posts: 32196
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Location: Pasadena
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#35 Post by c fu »

If you guys want to talk General SCOTUS stuff check out the great thread Corey started

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=152834
Ch@rlie F|_|
"Roulot is Roulot"©

ITB -Salt Vine Wines

Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/clayfu.wine

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#36 Post by Neal.Mollen »

More opinions on Wednesday and perhaps either Thursday or Friday. Wine decision this week for sure
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Matt A u s t i n
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 170
Joined: February 17th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Location: Walla Walla, WA

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#37 Post by Matt A u s t i n »

T. Melloni wrote: June 24th, 2019, 9:19 am
Jim Brennan wrote: June 24th, 2019, 7:26 am Doesn't look like anything today on wine either.
Today's decision in Iancu v. Brunetti is an interesting one. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 2_e29g.pdf
Funny how a full spectrum of Justices get FUCT under the First Amendment.
This decision has me wondering if the TTB will have to start approving some more controversial wine labels as well. Regulation of alcohol seems to generally allow for greater controls, but it would be interesting to see how a challenge to a Fuct wine label would play out.
Owner/Winemaker - Grosgrain Vineyards, Walla Walla, WA - grosgrainvineyards.com

pnitze
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 106
Joined: February 13th, 2012, 7:32 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#38 Post by pnitze »

ScotusBlog was engaging in reasoned speculation this morning that the opinion will be written by Justice Alito, because he is the sole justice not to have authored any opinions from the January term, and this is the last January case outstanding on the docket.

My hunch is that an Alito-authored opinion is good news for consumers, although the scope of the opinion could be quite narrow.
P@ul N!tze

User avatar
Jason M. P.
Posts: 4
Joined: June 7th, 2019, 11:44 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#39 Post by Jason M. P. »

There is an interesting case pending right now in the USDC Western District of Tennessee related to a Florida wine shop's inability to ship to a resident in Tennessee. Alvarez and UVA Wines, LLC v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Case No. 2:19-cv-02151. I will continue to monitor how this one plays out. TABC has filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is still pending. Trial is scheduled for March 2020. In the meantime, the Court has ordered the parties to mediation.
Jason M. P a n n u
Instagram: @jason.drinks.wine

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#40 Post by Neal.Mollen »

pnitze wrote: June 24th, 2019, 11:37 am ScotusBlog was engaging in reasoned speculation this morning that the opinion will be written by Justice Alito, because he is the sole justice not to have authored any opinions from the January term, and this is the last January case outstanding on the docket.

My hunch is that an Alito-authored opinion is good news for consumers, although the scope of the opinion could be quite narrow.
I'm interested to hear why you think an Alito-led majority would be good news for consumers. I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd be interested in hearing your thought process
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

Rauno E (NZ)
Posts: 2364
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 12:32 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#41 Post by Rauno E (NZ) »

I thought people on the Supreme Court like beer?

newhere

[smileyvault-ban.gif]
Rauno Engel

User avatar
T. Melloni
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2341
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 9:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#42 Post by T. Melloni »

Rauno E (NZ) wrote: June 24th, 2019, 1:58 pm I thought people on the Supreme Court like beer?

newhere

[smileyvault-ban.gif]
We know one likes beer.
Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg were known to enjoy a glass of wine together from time to time. News reports had them sharing Opus One before the last State of the Union address that Justice Scalia attended.
Tho m@s (sometimes); You can call me T.

Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines. . .

User avatar
Nola Palomar
BerserkerDay MVP
BerserkerDay MVP
Posts: 4853
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 2:34 am
Location: Ugijar (GRANADA) Spain and Dayton, Ohio
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#43 Post by Nola Palomar »

Rauno E (NZ) wrote: June 24th, 2019, 1:58 pm I thought people on the Supreme Court like beer?

newhere

[smileyvault-ban.gif]
Beat me to it!
Nola
ITB

Veleta
Bodega Dominio Buenavista
D.O.P. Granada, Spain


Juan Manuel Palomar MD - 1948-2018 Husband, Father, Surgeon, Mentor, Winery owner & Winemaker, my everything...RIP
Bob Wood - 1949-2013 Berserker for eternity! RIP

pnitze
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 106
Joined: February 13th, 2012, 7:32 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#44 Post by pnitze »

The main reason I suspect Justice Alito will side with consumers in this case is that, of all the conservatives on the Court, he is the least concerned with protecting state sovereignty. At heart he is a federalist who is comfortable with federal legal supremacy. He sides with the federal government more than any other sitting justice. So to the extent you read the 21st amendment as an arrogation of power to the states to control the distribution of liquor (which is only a partial reading), then I think Justice Alito leans in favor of protecting unrestrained commerce over states’ rights.

Separately, I’d put limited weight on this, but Justice Alito has a strong appreciation for culture, enjoys wine (he’s not a great wine enthusiast to my knowledge, but he appreciates it), and understands the role of wine in society. So he’s not going to come into the decision thinking, “who cares about free trade in wine.”
P@ul N!tze

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#45 Post by Neal.Mollen »

T. Melloni wrote: June 24th, 2019, 2:09 pm
Rauno E (NZ) wrote: June 24th, 2019, 1:58 pm I thought people on the Supreme Court like beer?

newhere

[smileyvault-ban.gif]
We know one likes beer.
Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg were known to enjoy a glass of wine together from time to time. News reports had them sharing Opus One before the last State of the Union address that Justice Scalia attended.
I think Kennedy was a wine lover too
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

pnitze
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 106
Joined: February 13th, 2012, 7:32 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#46 Post by pnitze »

Justice Kennedy is a member of the DC chapter of the Tastevin, and hosted Tastevin events at the Court from time to time. Justice O’Connor is also a member.
P@ul N!tze

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#47 Post by Neal.Mollen »

pnitze wrote: June 24th, 2019, 2:23 pm The main reason I suspect Justice Alito will side with consumers in this case is that, of all the conservatives on the Court, he is the least concerned with protecting state sovereignty. At heart he is a federalist who is comfortable with federal legal supremacy. He sides with the federal government more than any other sitting justice. So to the extent you read the 21st amendment as an arrogation of power to the states to control the distribution of liquor (which is only a partial reading), then I think Justice Alito leans in favor of protecting unrestrained commerce over states’ rights.

Separately, I’d put limited weight on this, but Justice Alito has a strong appreciation for culture, enjoys wine (he’s not a great wine enthusiast to my knowledge, but he appreciates it), and understands the role of wine in society. So he’s not going to come into the decision thinking, “who cares about free trade in wine.”
Interesting! I've always considered Alito to be a statist in the Rehnquist mold, so maybe some overlap there.
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
CJ Beazley
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 30201
Joined: December 3rd, 2011, 6:33 am
Location: Ovilla\Midlothian Texas
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#48 Post by CJ Beazley »

Pretty basic article but informative article, in case some missed it
https://www.winespectator.com/articles/ ... 61e3e000aa
It's C(raig)

User avatar
Ethan Abraham
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1638
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 10:34 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#49 Post by Ethan Abraham »

Winner winner chicken dinner. 7-2 with gorsuch and Thomas dissenting.

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39900
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#50 Post by Neal.Mollen »

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_5i36.pdf

Residency requirement unconstitutional
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”