Supreme Court, and wine.

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Victor Hong
Posts: 13121
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm

Supreme Court, and wine.

#1 Post by Victor Hong » January 11th, 2019, 4:58 am

WineHunter.

User avatar
Kirk.Grant
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2846
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 1:29 pm
Location: Bangor, Maine

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#2 Post by Kirk.Grant » January 11th, 2019, 5:19 am

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

YLee
Posts: 319
Joined: September 20th, 2018, 8:09 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#3 Post by YLee » January 11th, 2019, 5:28 am

I clicked it and got a virus [tease.gif]
-Yong

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 28728
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#4 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » January 11th, 2019, 5:31 am

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: 30156
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#5 Post by Neal.Mollen » 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 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: 2208
Joined: December 1st, 2013, 1:07 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#6 Post by NoahR » 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... ;)
Noah Raizman
Washington, DC

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 28728
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#7 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » January 11th, 2019, 6:27 am

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: 15023
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 5:29 pm
Location: ChiIl

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#8 Post by David K o l i n » 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 announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” T. Roosevelt

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." J. Goebbels (reprised by D Trump)

John A Hunt
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 39
Joined: January 27th, 2015, 7:06 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#9 Post by John A Hunt » January 11th, 2019, 7:18 am

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: 13154
Joined: March 6th, 2011, 10:57 am
Location: Town of Cats

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#10 Post by Craig G » January 11th, 2019, 7:26 am

Is a bstruse like a dick?
“I want to halve your babies” — King Solomon

C. Gle@son

User avatar
Todd F r e n c h
Site Admin
<dfn>Site Admin</dfn>
Posts: 37682
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 8:46 am
Location: San Clemente, CA

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#11 Post by Todd F r e n c h » 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?
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: 1843
Joined: March 31st, 2017, 9:57 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#12 Post by Mich@el Ch@ng » January 11th, 2019, 8:27 am

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: 16515
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#13 Post by Alan Rath » January 11th, 2019, 11:52 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
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...

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 30156
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#14 Post by Neal.Mollen » January 11th, 2019, 12:33 pm

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
Posts: 4806
Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
Location: SF Bay

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#15 Post by Al Osterheld » January 12th, 2019, 10:08 am

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

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”