For reasons I cannot explain I do not accept this on surface level that the
supreme court is looking at this for reasons stated. One or more than one
of the justices want to define states rights.

That is the very essence of other rulings.

Guess I have seen one to many Oliver Stone movies.



"Xyzsch" > wrote in message
...
> >Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there
cannot
> >be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That
said
> >since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear
the
> >case?
>
> Haven't the lower courts been inconsistent in the "in state vs. out of
state
> wineries" question? I believe that one decision said it was okay to
> discriminate against out of state wineries, ie allow direct shipping for
in
> state wineries, and disallow it for out of state wineries. Other decisions
have
> said that states could not discriminate.
>
> Given that the Supreme Court wants the plaintiffs to confine their
arguments to
> this question, it sounds like the Court wishes to rule on this narrow
question.
>
>
> I suspect the Supreme Court will continue to allow state to regulate
alcohol
> sales and distribution, but will rule that states cannot treat out of
state
> wineries differently than those located in state. In this case, states
could
> still choose to disallow all direct shipping.
>
> I don't see how this case has anything to do with other issues, eg. Roe vs
> Wade, Christianity, or even internet sales in general?
>
> It is unlikely the Court will accept Michigan's claim that the three-tier
> system promotes competition. There is not an economist outside the liquor
> industry who would support such a position. But I don't think the Court is
> trying to rule (at least in this case) whether the three-tier system
stifles
> competition.
>
> Tom Schellberg