| BFSON |
The Bush administration has until the end of today to decide whether to take a
stand in a Supreme Court case pitting former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth
Starr and President Bush's brother-in-law against a coalition of evangelical
Christians.
The administration is not a party to the case, in which wine producers are
trying to overturn state laws prohibiting Internet wine shipments. But the
White House finds itself caught between two parts of Bush's political base:
business interests who favor freer commerce and religious conservatives
concerned about minors buying wine.
People involved in the case said the matter was still being debated within the
administration late Tuesday. A White House spokeswoman yesterday referred
questions to the Justice Department, where a spokesman did not respond.
Starr, representing groups called the Coalition for Free Trade and the Family
Winemakers of California, has been prominent in representing the wine industry
as it fights bans in Michigan and New York of direct sales of wine across state
lines, generally done via the Internet. "The laws of these states are
antithetical to the principle of free interstate trade on which this nation was
founded," Starr wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "With their blatant
discrimination against out-of-state economic interests, these laws are
constitutionally indefensible."
On Starr's side are an ad hoc group called Free the Grapes and the Wine
Institute, an industry group. Robert P. Koch, who is married to President
Bush's sister, Doro, is the group's president.
On the other side are New York and Michigan, who are supported by attorneys
general from 35 states. (About half the states have bans on direct wine sales.)
The states are joined by liquor distributors and a coalition of religious and
community groups including the National Association of Evangelicals, the Eagle
Forum, Concerned Women for America and American Values. These groups have
joined a friend-of-the-court brief to be filed today by the Michigan
Association of Secondary School Principals.
"When I saw this case I immediately jumped on it," said Richard Cizik, vice
president for governmental affairs for the National Association of
Evangelicals. Cizik said he will be "disappointed" if the administration does
not side with him. "Underage youth are purchasing alcohol at alarming rates,"
he said.
Winemakers say such fears are fueled by distributors who fear lost business,
but the opinion is widely held among social conservatives. "Internet sales has
the real potential of making the parental job even harder," said Gary Bauer,
who leads American Values. "Anything that undermines the progress that has been
made on keeping underage kids away from alcohol is bad."
Supporters of direct wine shipments point to a 2003 study by the Federal Trade
Commission finding that direct shipment of wine saved consumers as much as 21
percent and that states had other ways to limit sales to minors. "The rhetoric
from the other side has been refuted, but they still bring up the same tired
arguments," said Jeremy Benson, a spokesmen for the wine producers.
But the supporters of the Internet sales bans are not convinced. "It's
virtually impossible" to block direct shippers from selling to minors, said Jim
Ballard, executive director of the Michigan Association of Secondary School
Principals. "We do not need to increase uncontrollable access to alcohol for
underage students."
Though Starr is widely respected among Bush administration officials, the other
side has hired a lawyer who is almost as admired: Miguel Estrada, who was
Bush's choice to be a circuit court judge before Democrats blocked his
nomination.
|
|
|
| George Cutshaw |
"BFSON" <bfson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040729224643.25491.00002604@mb-m29.aol.com...
> The Bush administration has until the end of today to decide whether to
take a
> stand in a Supreme Court case pitting former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth
> Starr and President Bush's brother-in-law against a coalition of
evangelical
> Christians.
The stand is really against the three-tier mafia distribution system.
>
> The administration is not a party to the case, in which wine producers are
> trying to overturn state laws prohibiting Internet wine shipments. But the
> White House finds itself caught between two parts of Bush's political
base:
> business interests who favor freer commerce and religious conservatives
> concerned about minors buying wine.
Is that really the concern? If a minor can afford to buy Bryant Family or
Screaming Eagle (or other wines offered by wineries directly), than he or
she should be able to drink it.
I don't believe that "religious conservatives" are behind this issue. But
if they are, the question is, is this Taliban Afghanistan (religion imposed
by force of law) or the good ol' U.S.A.?
>
> People involved in the case said the matter was still being debated within
the
> administration late Tuesday. A White House spokeswoman yesterday referred
> questions to the Justice Department, where a spokesman did not respond.
>
> Starr, representing groups called the Coalition for Free Trade and the
Family
> Winemakers of California, has been prominent in representing the wine
industry
> as it fights bans in Michigan and New York of direct sales of wine across
state
> lines, generally done via the Internet. "The laws of these states are
> antithetical to the principle of free interstate trade on which this
nation was
> founded," Starr wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "With their blatant
> discrimination against out-of-state economic interests, these laws are
> constitutionally indefensible."
>
> On Starr's side are an ad hoc group called Free the Grapes and the Wine
> Institute, an industry group. Robert P. Koch, who is married to President
> Bush's sister, Doro, is the group's president.
>
> On the other side are New York and Michigan, who are supported by
attorneys
> general from 35 states. (About half the states have bans on direct wine
sales.)
> The states are joined by liquor distributors and a coalition of religious
and
> community groups including the National Association of Evangelicals, the
Eagle
> Forum, Concerned Women for America and American Values. These groups have
> joined a friend-of-the-court brief to be filed today by the Michigan
> Association of Secondary School Principals.
So, us citizens are forced to pay taxes to the states, and then they use
that money to wage war against us when we fight for our freedoms.
>
> "When I saw this case I immediately jumped on it," said Richard Cizik,
vice
> president for governmental affairs for the National Association of
> Evangelicals. Cizik said he will be "disappointed" if the administration
does
> not side with him. "Underage youth are purchasing alcohol at alarming
rates,"
> he said.
>
> Winemakers say such fears are fueled by distributors who fear lost
business,
> but the opinion is widely held among social conservatives. "Internet sales
has
> the real potential of making the parental job even harder," said Gary
Bauer,
> who leads American Values. "Anything that undermines the progress that has
been
> made on keeping underage kids away from alcohol is bad."
>
> Supporters of direct wine shipments point to a 2003 study by the Federal
Trade
> Commission finding that direct shipment of wine saved consumers as much as
21
> percent and that states had other ways to limit sales to minors. "The
rhetoric
> from the other side has been refuted, but they still bring up the same
tired
> arguments," said Jeremy Benson, a spokesmen for the wine producers.
>
> But the supporters of the Internet sales bans are not convinced. "It's
> virtually impossible" to block direct shippers from selling to minors,
said Jim
> Ballard, executive director of the Michigan Association of Secondary
School
> Principals. "We do not need to increase uncontrollable access to alcohol
for
> underage students."
>
> Though Starr is widely respected among Bush administration officials, the
other
> side has hired a lawyer who is almost as admired: Miguel Estrada, who was
> Bush's choice to be a circuit court judge before Democrats blocked his
> nomination.
A Republican judge who's not even for free trade must be an abomination.
>
>
|
|
|
| Pumbaa |
Bush will have to take a poll and find out which position will give him the
most votes.
Is there logic (besides getting to keep his job) to anything that man does
that does not involve votes? China is bad but trade with them, Cuba is bad
and don't with them.
|
|
|
| Huge Johnson |
> There's no basis in law for that position, in fact, statements like that
> will only serve to make it more difficult to get the existing regulation
> changed.
>
> There's no reason an unscrupulous vendor wouldn't happily get into
> the business of selling wine targeted at youth via the mail. It's
> not about Screaming Eagle, it's about Schmuck Vineyards selling
> cases of high-alcohol, slightly sweet, fizzy wines by the case.
> At least that's the perceived risk, and the perception needs to
> be directly addressed, not gratuitously dismissed.
>
> Dana
Yes, but the issues (beneath the spin) are state's rights to govern
alcohol and distributors protecting their business. The extreme
example that will be cited by distributors will be "children" who
order alcohol over the web, not wine specifically, but alcohol. In
truth, that's not the concern of the distributors at all, but a
strawman they're throwing up to attract attention away from the
protection they have with the three-tier system.
Whether "children" plan their alcohol orders far enough in advance and
whether they will order Screaming Eagle vs. Charles Shaw and whether
its actually economical to order most wines via mail will, of course,
not come up (at least from the distributors anyway.
The "friend of the court" briefings filed by the "pro-family" and
"pro-children" groups makes me think of Reverend Lovejoy's wife on The
Simpsons who is prone to shouting (at irrelevant times) "but what
about the children?!?"
/huge
http://www.hugejohnsonsworldofwine.blogspot.com
|
|
|
| George Cutshaw |
"Dana Myers" <k6jq@pvbb.net> wrote in message
news:2hxOc.4675$AY5.3588@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> George Cutshaw wrote:
> > "BFSON" <bfson@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040729224643.25491.00002604@mb-m29.aol.com...
>
> >>The administration is not a party to the case, in which wine producers
are
> >>trying to overturn state laws prohibiting Internet wine shipments. But
the
> >>White House finds itself caught between two parts of Bush's political
> >
> > base:
> >
> >>business interests who favor freer commerce and religious conservatives
> >>concerned about minors buying wine.
> >
> >
> > Is that really the concern? If a minor can afford to buy Bryant Family
or
> > Screaming Eagle (or other wines offered by wineries directly), than he
or
> > she should be able to drink it.
>
> There's no basis in law for that position, in fact, statements like that
> will only serve to make it more difficult to get the existing regulation
> changed.
>
> There's no reason an unscrupulous vendor wouldn't happily get into
> the business of selling wine targeted at youth via the mail. It's
> not about Screaming Eagle, it's about Schmuck Vineyards selling
> cases of high-alcohol, slightly sweet, fizzy wines by the case.
> At least that's the perceived risk, and the perception needs to
> be directly addressed, not gratuitously dismissed.
It's the job of the parent or the church, not the taxpayer (me). I could
care less if kids drink. They're already doing drugs (which are illegal but
easy to obtain anyway) and having sex (also illegal for minors, although
most propose handing out condoms, not trying to stop it).
More importantly, this is a smokescreen. It's really about the mafia
distributors keeping their three-tier system. And in-state liquor stores
that fear competition.
>
> Dana
|
|
|
|
