NYT: Supreme Court Wrestles With Case on Pigs, Cruelty and Commerce

[Anonymous]

Just read this article from the New York Times:
A California law requiring that pork sold in the state come from humanely raised pigs posed questions about how far states can go in affecting conduct outside their borders.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/11/us/supreme-court-pigs-animal-cruelty.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR2pjgguPS66nGFv-5kQ5Mt2vhoMi2ZDMEZKGQo-cRk_YYyrfSyKuPEyxIY

I live in the DMV now but am was born in a state in which the economy depends heavily on pork production. Curious to know what others from our area think of this case.

[Anonymous]

People will claim to care about animal rights but won’t pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People will claim to care about animal rights but won’t pay for it.

That's actually not true, more and more people do care and are willing to pay more for humanely raised animals. I only buy humanely raised meat and also try to only buy from farms with sustainable practices. I also try to buy local meat when possible after visiting the farms. We eat less meat to afford this, but I don't think that is a bad thing. This has become the norm for educated animal lovers, many people are also just becoming vegetarians.

[Anonymous]

Seems like CA would have the right to pass that law. If the farmers can't or won't follow it, they can sell elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People will claim to care about animal rights but won’t pay for it.

That's actually not true, more and more people do care and are willing to pay more for humanely raised animals. I only buy humanely raised meat and also try to only buy from farms with sustainable practices. I also try to buy local meat when possible after visiting the farms. We eat less meat to afford this, but I don't think that is a bad thing. This has become the norm for educated animal lovers, many people are also just becoming vegetarians.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

CA will get smacked down. This is infringing on the constitution and the federal government's control over interstate commerce.

[Anonymous]

Seems like a prelude to try to overturn California’s version of CAFE standards

[Anonymous]

I don’t care about how the animals I eat are raised. I don’t, and I never will. They are food. Nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like CA would have the right to pass that law. If the farmers can't or won't follow it, they can sell elsewhere.

Absolutely this. The state can regular what is sold within its borders. If this gets struck down, how can a state regulate any product produced outside its borders? People have the right to engage in interstate travel; bacon does not.
I’m not a huge stares rights proponent but this seems to me pretty fundamental. If the s cot didn’t hate California, it woulddn’t.even be a question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care about how the animals I eat are raised. I don’t, and I never will. They are food. Nothing more.

That’s actually a strong sign that you may be a sociopath. I can’t really relate to the idea that a human wouldn’t strive to alleviate suffering wherever possible. Animals are also more than food, of course. They are mothers and sisters have a life full of experiences and have inherent value beyond what they provide humans the same way as all sentient beings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CA will get smacked down. This is infringing on the constitution and the federal government's control over interstate commerce.

Ironic that pig farmers may have more rights than abortion seekers....

[Anonymous]

I don't really have a position on whether the commerce clause allows this law or not.

But what sickens me to my core is that all the California law does is require pigs be given enough room to stand up and turn around. It's not like they are requiring actual humane treatment. Imagine how bad things are at regular pig farms that this minimal standard is seen as so impossible to comply with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really have a position on whether the commerce clause allows this law or not.

But what sickens me to my core is that all the California law does is require pigs be given enough room to stand up and turn around. It's not like they are requiring actual humane treatment. Imagine how bad things are at regular pig farms that this minimal standard is seen as so impossible to comply with.

+1000

Yes. Great point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CA will get smacked down. This is infringing on the constitution and the federal government's control over interstate commerce.

Ironic that pig farmers may have more rights than abortion seekers....

Nothing ironic about it. Pig farmers are men, mostly white men, which means there should be no restriction on what they do in the view of the GOP. I’m sure someone will find a religious justification for this inhumane treatment of the commerce one doesn’t fly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care about how the animals I eat are raised. I don’t, and I never will. They are food. Nothing more.

That’s actually a strong sign that you may be a sociopath. I can’t really relate to the idea that a human wouldn’t strive to alleviate suffering wherever possible. Animals are also more than food, of course. They are mothers and sisters have a life full of experiences and have inherent value beyond what they provide humans the same way as all sentient beings.

DP

My grandparents had a hog farm. Something I was taught as soon as was a toddler was to stay away from hogs. If you fell into their pen, they would eat you alive.

Are hogs sociopath, too? Or ALL animals, for that matter? Because I’m pretty sure any animal that sees you as a meal isn’t going to care at all about your well-being as it’s killing and eating you.