If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Makers of "I Can't Believe It's Not Vinegar" to change name as Internet wine sales go legit   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 119
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

15007 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 May 2005 at 12:32 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-05-16 12:36:16 PM
Clever headline.
 
2005-05-16 12:36:30 PM
*Golf clap*
 
2005-05-16 12:38:18 PM
Another 5-4 decision. Thanks a lot, Reagan-Bush appointees! And if Bush-43 gets his way, they'll be making these kind of decisions forever. fark Bush!
 
2005-05-16 12:38:33 PM
Only if your state allows direct shipment from in-state producers. If it bans all direct shipments, this ruling won't mean anything.
 
2005-05-16 12:39:32 PM
Ah, yes. You missed the infamous "whine with your cheese" advert.
 
2005-05-16 12:40:00 PM
This is actually pretty cool for those folks living in a 'non-shipping' state.

I know a guy who runs a very successful wine business here in Idaho (a shipping state). His wife wants to move to Arizona (a non-shipping state, from what I understand) and he would have had to have given up his business, since he couldn't get and send wine to customers.

Perhaps now he can keep doing it. I really hope so, since this wine biz was the only thing he really loved.
 
2005-05-16 12:40:06 PM
nice job sbmtr!
 
2005-05-16 12:40:13 PM
Another 5-4 decision

This wasn't a particularly ideologically driven case. Scalia actually joined the more liberal justices in the majority and Stevens joined Thomas's dissent.
 
2005-05-16 12:41:04 PM
Cool, this means cross-state shipments of marijuana are ok, right? Right?
 
2005-05-16 12:42:40 PM
krovvy, as has been pointed out, Scalia sided with the justices he usually opposes, rendering your statement retarded.
 
2005-05-16 12:42:55 PM
good.

That means that I can buy this junk without having to visit the store.

May I suggest that if you have not tried this stuff, you will absolutely love it.

mmmmmm...
 
2005-05-16 12:43:19 PM
Sweeeeeeeet headline!
 
2005-05-16 12:43:43 PM
I can't believe this decision wasn't unanimous.
 
2005-05-16 12:44:06 PM
 
2005-05-16 12:44:16 PM
Hey krovvy, why the long face? I thought dirty hippies liked wine?
 
2005-05-16 12:44:25 PM
Another 5-4 decision. Thanks a lot, Reagan-Bush appointees! And if Bush-43 gets his way, they'll be making these kind of decisions forever. fark Bush!

...

So...you want internet wine sales to be prohibited...? Or...?
 
2005-05-16 12:44:55 PM
Does this mean two buck chuck will actually cost two bucks outside of california?
 
2005-05-16 12:45:09 PM
Picture of krovvy:

 
2005-05-16 12:45:17 PM
I'm certainly not a Supreme Court scholar, but I can't recall a decision breaking down along these lines. Scalia with Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg and Kennedy ? Isn't that a sign of the apocolypse ?

My guess is that he didn't buy the "compelling interest" argument that banning sales is necessary to enforce minimum age laws. Also, asking an Italian to limit wine sales in any fashion is just ridiculous (racial harmony disclaimer: I am Italian, and live in a "banned" state ...so I'm happy as can be with this decision, however it came to be)
 
2005-05-16 12:46:32 PM
Great, this still doesn't help me. Indiana sux.
 
2005-05-16 12:46:41 PM
I think you are missing the point.

The point: it will likely also apply to beer.

Woo Hoo!
 
2005-05-16 12:47:17 PM
you know, speaking of wine...my friend from iceland told me they sometimes drink cabernet mixed with pepsi...

its actually really good...
 
2005-05-16 12:47:29 PM
one more "huzzah!" for the submitter.
 
2005-05-16 12:47:49 PM
elvindeath:

I'm certainly not a Supreme Court scholar, but I can't recall a decision breaking down along these lines.

It's not uncommon.

My guess is that he didn't buy the "compelling interest" argument that banning sales is necessary to enforce minimum age laws.

Rightly so, because the argument has absolutely no logical connection to banning shipments originating outside the state, while permitting shipments originating inside the state.
 
2005-05-16 12:48:14 PM
I wish they would just get rid of state liquor control completely. I never saw any compelling reason for the government to be running an industry that could easily be done privately.
 
2005-05-16 12:48:53 PM
Kind of interesting, although why underaged kids would want to buy directly from the vineyard makes no sense to me. Paying the homeless guy hanging around the Circle K to grab you some Strawberry Hill is way cheaper.
 
2005-05-16 12:50:12 PM
And I HOPE it applies to beer, halfof33. I'd like to get a case of Henry Weinhard's, (I know some of you will deride it, but I liked it), sent by mail.

This is a good thing, as it upholds free enterprise, which, in turn, is also a good thing.
 
2005-05-16 12:50:47 PM
Only if your state allows direct shipment from in-state producers. If it bans all direct shipments, this ruling won't mean anything.

I think, though I am not sure, that my old state of Pennsylvania bans all direct shipments. Looks like Philadelphians will still be making the "booze cruise" over to Jersey.
 
2005-05-16 12:51:01 PM
Maryland still screwed.

Thankfully, Its only a 30-40 minute drive to get to NoVa Wineries.
 
2005-05-16 12:51:03 PM
Oh, and Shut up, krovvy. You'll be summoned when you're needed.
 
2005-05-16 12:51:10 PM
boohiss: So...you want internet wine sales to be prohibited...? Or...?

The issue doesn't matter. All that matters is you do some party bashing.
 
2005-05-16 12:51:40 PM
pimp suit: If you had mad skillz, you would have made it pop. ;-)
 
2005-05-16 12:51:44 PM
krovvy:

Another 5-4 decision. Thanks a lot, Reagan-Bush appointees! And if Bush-43 gets his way, they'll be making these kind of decisions forever. fark Bush!

Um, it was the more liberal members plus Scalia that made up the majority, dumbarse.
 
2005-05-16 12:52:14 PM
Yeah, but if anybody orders Merlot, the ruling is rescinded!
 
2005-05-16 12:52:35 PM
mekkab: Thankfully, Its only a 30-40 minute drive to get to NoVa Wineries.

I recommend the Farfelu Riesling.
 
2005-05-16 12:52:38 PM
Hmmm, I didn't see Georgia on the list, but last time I checked, wine.com wouldn't ship here. Regardless, this is a spiffy development indeed.
 
2005-05-16 12:53:51 PM
For some reason, I read the headline and thought that this was a new line of douche products or something.
 
2005-05-16 12:55:02 PM
In the interest of being consistent.. this blows. States have no power anymore. One day, local laws will be totally gone.. a thing of the past. There will be one supreme law of the land, covering everything. WTF?

/oh yeah.
 
2005-05-16 12:55:17 PM
kronicfeld: I recommend the Farfelu Riesling.

Nevermind, apparently they don't offer that any longer. The Fou de Rouge is spectacular, though.
 
2005-05-16 12:55:34 PM
ram1312: my friend from iceland told me they sometimes drink cabernet mixed with pepsi

That's actually a Spanish concoction - the Calimocho. Probably got exported to Iceland from Ibiza.
 
2005-05-16 12:56:32 PM
boohiss

You will NOT repeat NOT defame Aunt Esther in this forum!

/I'm coming, Elizabeth, I'm coming
 
2005-05-16 12:57:04 PM
skylabdown:

In the interest of being consistent.. this blows. States have no power anymore. One day, local laws will be totally gone.. a thing of the past. There will be one supreme law of the land, covering everything. WTF?

Actually, this is keeping consistent with an original interpretation of the commerce clause that is hundreds of years old. Simply put, a state cannot discriminate against commerce from foreign states; it has to treat foreign and domestic commerce equally.
 
2005-05-16 12:57:15 PM
This headline is funny, owing to the mental image of a buff, bare chested, long haired european male model, passed out drunk in a drab cubicle, located in a soon to be bankcrupt Dot Com venture, wine bottle in hand and crusty dried vomit hanging his masculine chiseled facial features. Cursing out loud the financial advisor that recommanded going into internet wine sales.
 
2005-05-16 12:58:01 PM
skylabdown

States actually still do have the power. They just have to apply it evenly. If a state allows direct purchase of wine from the winery, then they have to allow out of state direct purchase too.

In Utah, my state, the state (Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control) is the only legal seller of wine, you can not buy it from the couple of in-state wineries directly, so you still can not buy direct from out of state wineries.

Equal protection, fair trade and all that. Yeah, states have a responsibility to follow the constitution too...
 
2005-05-16 12:58:09 PM
Another 5-4 decision. Thanks a lot, Reagan-Bush appointees! And if Bush-43 gets his way, they'll be making these kind of decisions forever. fark Bush!

Flame On!

 
2005-05-16 12:58:51 PM
I'd rather ship wine from New Zealand. Wah!! I want my case of Cloudy Bay!!!
 
2005-05-16 01:00:12 PM
The link to the story kill firefox every time :(
 
2005-05-16 01:02:44 PM
skylabdown:

In the interest of being consistent.. this blows. States have no power anymore. One day, local laws will be totally gone.. a thing of the past. There will be one supreme law of the land, covering everything. WTF?

Not really. Since this as an interstate commerce issue, it's the kind of thing that should be handled at the federal level. It's also a Constitutional issue because the states get the power to regulate alcohol from the 21st amendment.
 
2005-05-16 01:03:07 PM
Hooray. The Supreme Court did actually care about the constitution for once. I was beginning to wonder about that.
 
2005-05-16 01:03:23 PM
Major Thomb

Got out of the kitchen, eh?
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report