Poster
12-10-2004, 10:08 AM
The Supreme Court has begun to hear the oral arguments in a case over interstate wine sales. Two laws at issue are those from New York and Michigan which allow the importation of wine solely to state-licensed wholesalers. Wineries from across the country are challenging the laws claiming that the statues are discriminatory and violate the Constitution's implicit ban on trade protectionism. Potential financial gains from internet sales for small wineries could be huge if interstate sales are permitted.
"'One thing is certain,' Ginsburg read. 'The central purpose of [the 21st Amendment] was not to empower states to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition.'"
"Perhaps most encouraging for the winemakers and wine drinkers, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who dissented from the 1984 ruling, seemed willing to apply it to this case, telling the states' lawyers repeatedly that it 'cuts against you.'"
For more information see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44523-2004Dec7.html
"'One thing is certain,' Ginsburg read. 'The central purpose of [the 21st Amendment] was not to empower states to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition.'"
"Perhaps most encouraging for the winemakers and wine drinkers, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who dissented from the 1984 ruling, seemed willing to apply it to this case, telling the states' lawyers repeatedly that it 'cuts against you.'"
For more information see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44523-2004Dec7.html