Supreme Court, and wine.
- Victor Hong
- Posts: 19739
- Joined: May 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm
- Location: Banana Republic of ‘Merica
- Been thanked: 13 times
- Kirk.Grant
- 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.
OK...I'll follow your instructions (for now), do you want to just post the link?
Cellartracker:Kirk Grant
- D@vid Bu3ker
- 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.
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.
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
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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
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
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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...
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
Washington, DC
- D@vid Bu3ker
- 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.
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
- David K o l i n
- 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.
He’s not being coy. He likes being abstruseNeal.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
-
- GCC Member
- Posts: 95
- Joined: January 27th, 2015, 7:06 am
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
David K o l i n wrote: ↑January 11th, 2019, 6:36 amHe’s not being coy. He likes being abstruseNeal.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
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.
- Todd F r e n c h
- Site Admin
- 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.
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?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...![]()
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)
-
- GCC Member
- Posts: 6675
- Joined: March 31st, 2017, 9:57 pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
Doubtful, I think if they did rule for Tennessee it'd be a pretty narrow ruling, at least IMO.Todd F r e n c h wrote: ↑January 11th, 2019, 8:15 amIf 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?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...![]()
- Alan Rath
- 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.
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...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'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- Al Osterheld
- 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.
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
-Al
- D@vid Bu3ker
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39247
- Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
- Location: Connecticut
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- D@vid Bu3ker
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39247
- Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
- Location: Connecticut
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- D@vid Bu3ker
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39247
- Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
- Location: Connecticut
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
- Troy Stark
- 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.
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?
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
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
+++++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

-
- 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.
He must have become habituated to his usual style of posting blink links and now needs to up the ante.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
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?
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?
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
Seeking or opposing? Either way, good luck (although luck likely better if opposing).
Andrew H e i m e r t
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- Troy Stark
- 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.
I removed the names to protect the innocent.Neal.Mollen wrote: ↑June 17th, 2019, 9:08 am Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble
Insta: @lofiwineguy
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
Except for yours!Troy Stark wrote: ↑June 17th, 2019, 11:44 amI removed the names to protect the innocent.Neal.Mollen wrote: ↑June 17th, 2019, 9:08 am Troy, I think you should delete that post. No reason to get anyone in trouble
![snort.gif [snort.gif]](./images/smilies/snort.gif)
I don't have to speak; she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- Troy Stark
- GCC Member
- Posts: 875
- Joined: March 7th, 2012, 9:51 am
- Location: Tampa, FL
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
- Kevin Porter
- 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.
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.Neal.Mollen wrote: ↑June 17th, 2019, 7:47 amThanks!
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
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
His views were probably popular on PA AvenueKevin Porter wrote: ↑June 18th, 2019, 6:12 pmI 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.Neal.Mollen wrote: ↑June 17th, 2019, 7:47 amThanks!
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
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- 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
- T. Melloni
- GCC Member
- Posts: 2341
- Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 9:18 pm
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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. . .
Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines. . .
- c fu
- Moderator
- Posts: 32196
- Joined: January 27th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Location: Pasadena
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
If you guys want to talk General SCOTUS stuff check out the great thread Corey started
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=152834
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=152834
Ch@rlie F|_|
"Roulot is Roulot"©
ITB -Salt Vine Wines
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/clayfu.wine
"Roulot is Roulot"©
ITB -Salt Vine Wines
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/clayfu.wine
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- Matt A u s t i n
- GCC Member
- Posts: 170
- Joined: February 17th, 2010, 4:14 pm
- Location: Walla Walla, WA
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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.T. Melloni wrote: ↑June 24th, 2019, 9:19 amToday'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.
Owner/Winemaker - Grosgrain Vineyards, Walla Walla, WA - grosgrainvineyards.com
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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.
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
- Jason M. P.
- Posts: 4
- Joined: June 7th, 2019, 11:44 am
- Location: Nashville, TN
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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
Instagram: @jason.drinks.wine
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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 processpnitze 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 don't have to speak; she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
-
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: March 13th, 2012, 12:32 am
- Been thanked: 2 times
- T. Melloni
- GCC Member
- Posts: 2341
- Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 9:18 pm
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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. . .
Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines. . .
- Nola Palomar
- 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.
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
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
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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.”
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
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
I think Kennedy was a wine lover tooT. Melloni wrote: ↑June 24th, 2019, 2:09 pmWe 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 don't have to speak; she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
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
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
Interesting! I've always considered Alito to be a statist in the Rehnquist mold, so maybe some overlap there.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.”
I don't have to speak; she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
- CJ Beazley
- GCC Member
- Posts: 30201
- Joined: December 3rd, 2011, 6:33 am
- Location: Ovilla\Midlothian Texas
- Been thanked: 11 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
Pretty basic article but informative article, in case some missed it
https://www.winespectator.com/articles/ ... 61e3e000aa
https://www.winespectator.com/articles/ ... 61e3e000aa
It's C(raig)
- Ethan Abraham
- GCC Member
- Posts: 1638
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 10:34 am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Neal.Mollen
- GCC Member
- Posts: 39900
- Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Supreme Court, and wine.
I don't have to speak; she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one