4 ms·

Prop. 12, on humane sale of pork in California, upheld by Supreme Court

32 points by lisper 3y ago

aschearer 3y ago
> Proposition 12 bans selling products derived from sows that don’t have at least 24 square feet of space and the ability to stand up and turn around in their pens. Good! It's a start.
gnicholas 3y ago
> Gorsuch wrote for a majority that included Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. This is a super-weird combination of Justices, which includes those from the furthest right and furthest left. As the Volokh Conspiracy noted: > Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court, but only two justices (Thomas and Barrett) agreed with him in full. In fact, the Justices were quite splintered. [1] The third-listed takeaway is related to this odd clumping of Justics. > First, the opinion signals a narrowing of the Dormant Commerce Clause to an anti-discrimination rule, as opposed to a broader protection for the frictionless movement of goods and services across state lines. Second, the opinion provides a bright green light for states to adopt environmental laws that regulate goods and services based upon how they are produced (e.g. their carbon intensity, etc.). California already leads the way with such laws, and this decision should make it more difficult for business groups to challenge such measures. Third, the decision complicates the already questionable "Roberts Court is pro-business" narrative, by demonstrating (yet again) that when conservative jurisprudential commitments conflict with corporate interests, the former prevail. Combined with decisions such as Virginia Uranium v. Warren, National Pork Producers shows that business groups cannot depend on conservative justices to support their challenges to state regulations. 1: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/11/scotus-chooses-california-over-pork-producers-and-issues-four-other-opinions/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/11/scotus-chooses-californ...
- lisper 3y ago
  There are already a lot of products that are constrained in various ways from moving across state lines. Alcohol is the poster child, but it's a long list chock full of mundane items. For example, you can't ship a shower head to California unless it has a 1.8GPM flow restrictor on it.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  LOL, Roberts takes a shot at Kavanaugh on page 26: > JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s solo concurrence in part and dissent in part says the quiet part aloud: California’s market is so lucrative that almost any in-state measure will influence how out-of-state profit-maximizing firms choose to operate. ... But if that makes all the difference, it means voters in States with smaller markets are constitutionally entitled to greater authority to regulate in- state sales than voters in States with larger markets. So much for the Constitution’s “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States.”
  - solarmist 3y ago
    Lol, yup. Equal sovereignty does not mean equal influence.
    - ChainOfFools 3y ago
      /glances in the direction of the US Senate
      - solarmist 3y ago
        Isn’t that a direct acknowledgment that they are different?
        ChainOfFools 3y ago
        No, unless you're reading my comment as some sort of conservative dog whistle. The US Senate structure is a direct contradiction to GP's observation, it's the case where does not is weakened to should not.
        User23 3y ago
        The Senate is working exactly as intended. Some people might disagree with that intent, but until the constitution is amended or replaced it's very much a case of "should."
nimbius 3y ago
The deeper legal debate in the case centered on what's known as the dormant commerce clause, which generally bars states from passing laws that burden interstate commerce. If Congress has not passed a law affecting interstate commerce, the assumption under the doctrine is that lawmakers intended an open market without state regulation. Gorsuch characterized the pig farmers as attempting to expand the scope of the dormant commerce clause. He wrote in a section of the opinion that if farmers are looking for a national standard on how to raise pigs, they should turn to Congress instead of the courts. its a pretty accountable performance from Gorsuch imo.
subsaharancoder 3y ago
Now we add "State with the most expensive pork" to the accolades CA has amassed over time..as if things weren't bad as is...
- vinyl7 3y ago
  California is well on its way into gentrifying such that only the rich oligarchs can live here.
  - solarmist 3y ago
    If reducing suffering for living things is gentrification then where’s the line?
    - Pet_Ant 3y ago
      I mean I think that was the arguement for keeping slavery around in the south....
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    Vegetarian food choices remain the cheapest option for everybody. The people who base their personality on thinking tofu is icky have higher food budgets - the horror.
- solarmist 3y ago
  I'm all for the reducing suffering of any living animal when possible even when it increases prices. Of course this increases the need to pay decent wages to employees too.
- olliej 3y ago
  “I don’t care how much the animal suffers as long as it’s cheap for me at the end”?
- gamblor956 3y ago
  Based on what the pork producers were saying, this will have the effect of making all American pork products more expensive, since effectively all pork in the U.S. would have to be raised to CA standards in order to be sold to CA customers. CA customers already pay more for their pork than most other states' residents (beef and chicken are a large part of CA agriculture but pork is not), so the practical effect is a small relative increase in pork prices for CA residents and a huge relative increase in pork prices for everyone outside of CA.
ZooCow 3y ago
The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_c0ne.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_c0ne.pdf

32 points by lisper 3y ago

> Proposition 12 bans selling products derived from sows that don’t have at least 24 square feet of space and the ability to stand up and turn around in their pens. Good! It's a start.

gnicholas 3y ago

> Gorsuch wrote for a majority that included Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. This is a super-weird combination of Justices, which includes those from the furthest right and furthest left. As the Volokh Conspiracy noted: > Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court, but only two justices (Thomas and Barrett) agreed with him in full. In fact, the Justices were quite splintered. [1] The third-listed takeaway is related to this odd clumping of Justics. > First, the opinion signals a narrowing of the Dormant Commerce Clause to an anti-discrimination rule, as opposed to a broader protection for the frictionless movement of goods and services across state lines. Second, the opinion provides a bright green light for states to adopt environmental laws that regulate goods and services based upon how they are produced (e.g. their carbon intensity, etc.). California already leads the way with such laws, and this decision should make it more difficult for business groups to challenge such measures. Third, the decision complicates the already questionable "Roberts Court is pro-business" narrative, by demonstrating (yet again) that when conservative jurisprudential commitments conflict with corporate interests, the former prevail. Combined with decisions such as Virginia Uranium v. Warren, National Pork Producers shows that business groups cannot depend on conservative justices to support their challenges to state regulations. 1: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/11/scotus-chooses-california-over-pork-producers-and-issues-four-other-opinions/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/11/scotus-chooses-californ...

lisper 3y ago
There are already a lot of products that are constrained in various ways from moving across state lines. Alcohol is the poster child, but it's a long list chock full of mundane items. For example, you can't ship a shower head to California unless it has a 1.8GPM flow restrictor on it.
Kon-Peki 3y ago
LOL, Roberts takes a shot at Kavanaugh on page 26: > JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s solo concurrence in part and dissent in part says the quiet part aloud: California’s market is so lucrative that almost any in-state measure will influence how out-of-state profit-maximizing firms choose to operate. ... But if that makes all the difference, it means voters in States with smaller markets are constitutionally entitled to greater authority to regulate in- state sales than voters in States with larger markets. So much for the Constitution’s “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States.”
- solarmist 3y ago
  Lol, yup. Equal sovereignty does not mean equal influence.
  - ChainOfFools 3y ago
    /glances in the direction of the US Senate
    - solarmist 3y ago
      Isn’t that a direct acknowledgment that they are different?
      - ChainOfFools 3y ago
        No, unless you're reading my comment as some sort of conservative dog whistle. The US Senate structure is a direct contradiction to GP's observation, it's the case where does not is weakened to should not.
        User23 3y ago
        The Senate is working exactly as intended. Some people might disagree with that intent, but until the constitution is amended or replaced it's very much a case of "should."

nimbius 3y ago

The deeper legal debate in the case centered on what's known as the dormant commerce clause, which generally bars states from passing laws that burden interstate commerce. If Congress has not passed a law affecting interstate commerce, the assumption under the doctrine is that lawmakers intended an open market without state regulation. Gorsuch characterized the pig farmers as attempting to expand the scope of the dormant commerce clause. He wrote in a section of the opinion that if farmers are looking for a national standard on how to raise pigs, they should turn to Congress instead of the courts. its a pretty accountable performance from Gorsuch imo.

subsaharancoder 3y ago

Now we add "State with the most expensive pork" to the accolades CA has amassed over time..as if things weren't bad as is...

vinyl7 3y ago
California is well on its way into gentrifying such that only the rich oligarchs can live here.
- solarmist 3y ago
  If reducing suffering for living things is gentrification then where’s the line?
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    I mean I think that was the arguement for keeping slavery around in the south....
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  Vegetarian food choices remain the cheapest option for everybody. The people who base their personality on thinking tofu is icky have higher food budgets - the horror.
solarmist 3y ago
I'm all for the reducing suffering of any living animal when possible even when it increases prices. Of course this increases the need to pay decent wages to employees too.
olliej 3y ago
“I don’t care how much the animal suffers as long as it’s cheap for me at the end”?
gamblor956 3y ago
Based on what the pork producers were saying, this will have the effect of making all American pork products more expensive, since effectively all pork in the U.S. would have to be raised to CA standards in order to be sold to CA customers. CA customers already pay more for their pork than most other states' residents (beef and chicken are a large part of CA agriculture but pork is not), so the practical effect is a small relative increase in pork prices for CA residents and a huge relative increase in pork prices for everyone outside of CA.

ZooCow 3y ago

The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_c0ne.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_c0ne.pdf