Wine Wins (and so do you)

Gentle Readers,

My Better Half just hollered downstairs that the Supers ruled this morning that state-imposed handcuffs must come off interstate wine shippers. IOW, it is no longer illegal to ship wine from California to Ohio.

While vacationing a few years back a good friend and fellow traveler on the wine highway bought some premium red wine in Kapalua (maybe Lahaina) and then had it shipped home to himself. It never arrived and when he put in a claim with UPS he was told the wine had been seized as contraband and as such his insurance was null and void. He argued that somebody was drinking his pricey wine and demanded insurance reimbursement for the cost. I'm happy to report that unlike the government, UPS eventually caved and covered the cost of the wines.

The good news is that this kind of absurdity will never happen again.

“This is the best day for wine-lovers since the invention of the corkscrew,” said Clint Bolick, the strategic litigation counsel for the Institute for Justice.  “This landmark ruling is a victory for consumers and small businesses and a defeat for economic protectionism.  It demonstrates that in the era of the Internet, the Court will vindicate the principles of free trade that made this country great.”

My question, gentle readers, is why, in a country that advertises itself as a beacon of freedom to the world, did IJ have to litigate? And not simply going to court, but an appeals process that ended up at the Supreme Court of the United States, just to enforce our basic human right to buy and sell the things we choose to.

Are we free? Or not? Yes but.........somebody's gonna decide just how free you are. And it ain't gonna be you by golleee. To which I say, Uh-huh, if you can't own the property you ARE the property.

Bolick said, “Now wine lovers all across the nation can obtain their favorite wines without having to commit an act of civil disobedience.”

And without admitting guilt, a certain WC living in a certain state has aided and abetted such civil disobedience on behalf of friends in formerly oppressed states, and therefore, I understand exactly what Clint Bolick means.

This ruling has wide ranging implications whose ripples will extend well beyond the narrow confines of the wine merchants and consumers. That's good news, indeed.

The Supreme Court opinion is here. (.pdf) A nice summary of the litigation is here.

Happy Mundane

As Always,

Your Faithful Wine Commonsewer

tip of the glass to Lisa

UPDATES:

Several people have emailed me information this morning about the decision. I appreciate all of your input. Thanks.

30 Second Wine Advisor has more info here.

TWC is ESPECIALLY disappointed that Clarence Thomas vigorously opposed this decision citing his fear that people under the age of 21 might be able to get booze. You see, it's impossible for them to get booze now and this decision will open the flood gates.