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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. Interstate commerce is protected in the constitution. Where is abortion in the constitution?

But keep on crowing about race like a moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. Interstate commerce is protected in the constitution. Where is abortion in the constitution?

But keep on crowing about race like a moron.

Interstate commerce doesn’t prevent states from setting their own standards and requirements. California can require products from North Carolina to meet the same rules as California products. It isn’t discriminating against NC to apply a consistent rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. Interstate commerce is protected in the constitution. Where is abortion in the constitution?

But keep on crowing about race like a moron.

Interstate commerce doesn’t prevent states from setting their own standards and requirements. California can require products from North Carolina to meet the same rules as California products. It isn’t discriminating against NC to apply a consistent rule.

Good luck with that argument at the supreme court. That's like trying to claim CA can set its own standards for food and drugs, which is entirely out of their power and in control of the federal govt through the FDA. CA cannot set a different standard for making a cancer drug, for example, compared to what the rest of the country accepts via FDA approval. The federal govt control standards and quality for food and drugs sold for interstate commerce. CA will get smacked down.

[Anonymous]

Imagine if California is allowed to enact a law which could potentially change how pork is produced throughout the nation, then other states could respond by enacting their own laws attempting to impose their political views upon the whole nation. , for example, we could be headed toward a future where blue states forbid the sale of goods produced by non-union labor — while red states respond with their own laws forbidding the sale of goods that are made by unionized workers. What about about sates prohibiting the sale of goods produced by unvaccinated workers; or by employers who won’t pay for gender-affirming surgery for transgender employees. Imagine a red state that bans the sale of fruit picked by undocumented immigrants.

Do we really want to go to a place manufacturers might have to choose between selling their products in California (and complying with California's left-leaning rules) or selling their products in Texas (and aligning with Texas’s conservative values).

[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.

Your bravado is no shield to the fact you're a terrible person. Whether you care or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if California is allowed to enact a law which could potentially change how pork is produced throughout the nation, then other states could respond by enacting their own laws attempting to impose their political views upon the whole nation. , for example, we could be headed toward a future where blue states forbid the sale of goods produced by non-union labor — while red states respond with their own laws forbidding the sale of goods that are made by unionized workers. What about about sates prohibiting the sale of goods produced by unvaccinated workers; or by employers who won’t pay for gender-affirming surgery for transgender employees. Imagine a red state that bans the sale of fruit picked by undocumented immigrants.

Do we really want to go to a place manufacturers might have to choose between selling their products in California (and complying with California's left-leaning rules) or selling their products in Texas (and aligning with Texas’s conservative values).

They already do this in other contexts. So I'm fine with it here. And I support it 10000% if it means changes overall. Those feed lots, birthing barns, slaughterhouses are nothing short of torture chambers and those animals suffer miserably. (Not to mention they treat their employees like garbage). Why should we submit ourselves to the lowest common denominator? It's morally bankrupt, and the CA rule would work to eliminate that, to allow these "farms" to continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. Interstate commerce is protected in the constitution. Where is abortion in the constitution?

But keep on crowing about race like a moron.

Interstate commerce doesn’t prevent states from setting their own standards and requirements. California can require products from North Carolina to meet the same rules as California products. It isn’t discriminating against NC to apply a consistent rule.

Good luck with that argument at the supreme court. That's like trying to claim CA can set its own standards for food and drugs, which is entirely out of their power and in control of the federal govt through the FDA. CA cannot set a different standard for making a cancer drug, for example, compared to what the rest of the country accepts via FDA approval. The federal govt control standards and quality for food and drugs sold for interstate commerce. CA will get smacked down.

Fed rules are a floor, not a ceiling, unless they say so explicitly otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if California is allowed to enact a law which could potentially change how pork is produced throughout the nation, then other states could respond by enacting their own laws attempting to impose their political views upon the whole nation. , for example, we could be headed toward a future where blue states forbid the sale of goods produced by non-union labor — while red states respond with their own laws forbidding the sale of goods that are made by unionized workers. What about about sates prohibiting the sale of goods produced by unvaccinated workers; or by employers who won’t pay for gender-affirming surgery for transgender employees. Imagine a red state that bans the sale of fruit picked by undocumented immigrants.

Do we really want to go to a place manufacturers might have to choose between selling their products in California (and complying with California's left-leaning rules) or selling their products in Texas (and aligning with Texas’s conservative values).

They already do this in other contexts. So I'm fine with it here. And I support it 10000% if it means changes overall. Those feed lots, birthing barns, slaughterhouses are nothing short of torture chambers and those animals suffer miserably. (Not to mention they treat their employees like garbage). Why should we submit ourselves to the lowest common denominator? It's morally bankrupt, and the CA rule would work to eliminate that, to allow these "farms" to continue.

So you are OK with this because you think this needs to happen a moral statement? Under current law, the answer to this question is “no.” In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning “sodomy.” Among other things, Lawrence held that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.
If you think moral laws are OK Every blue state could potentially ban the sale of goods produced by workers who do not have access to abortion care, on the theory that promoting women’s equality is a moral good. Meanwhile, every red state could ban the sale of goods produced by workers who had an abortion, on the theory that abortions are immoral.
Again do we really want to go to a place manufacturers might have to choose between selling their products in California (and complying with California's left-leaning rules) or selling their products in Texas (and aligning with Texas’s conservative values if California is allowed to effectively decide how pig farms will be run in all 50 states, that could permit the very kind of “economic Balkanization” that the Court warned about in Hughes. Every state could start using their own laws to impose their will on their neighbors.
What is the point of the US at that point each state would have its own requirements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. Interstate commerce is protected in the constitution. Where is abortion in the constitution?

But keep on crowing about race like a moron.

Interstate commerce doesn’t prevent states from setting their own standards and requirements. California can require products from North Carolina to meet the same rules as California products. It isn’t discriminating against NC to apply a consistent rule.

Good luck with that argument at the supreme court. That's like trying to claim CA can set its own standards for food and drugs, which is entirely out of their power and in control of the federal govt through the FDA. CA cannot set a different standard for making a cancer drug, for example, compared to what the rest of the country accepts via FDA approval. The federal govt control standards and quality for food and drugs sold for interstate commerce. CA will get smacked down.

It’s already established law that states can have higher requirements and standards. Otherwise every state would be stuck with Mississippi’s standards.

[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.

Your bravado is no shield to the fact you're a terrible person. Whether you care or not.

You don’t understand what the word “bravado” means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your bravado is no shield to the fact you're a terrible person. Whether you care or not.

You don’t understand what the word “bravado” means.

DP. Actually, the PP did use the word correctly. Those of us that don't eat meat are quite familiar with the tough-talking, almost-boastful swagger of people that like to declare, as you did, that "I don't care about how the animals I eat are raised. They are food. Nothing more."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. Interstate commerce is protected in the constitution. Where is abortion in the constitution?

But keep on crowing about race like a moron.

Silly me, I thought it was one of those rights reserved “for the people”, like the Founders intended. But this Court has convinced me that states can do just about anything. California isn’t trying to ban out of state pork, just set standards for what is sold in the state. Why don’t you care about states rights?

[Anonymous]

I wonder which republican SCOTUS members will benefit directly from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. Interstate commerce is protected in the constitution. Where is abortion in the constitution?

But keep on crowing about race like a moron.

Silly me, I thought it was one of those rights reserved “for the people”, like the Founders intended. But this Court has convinced me that states can do just about anything. California isn’t trying to ban out of state pork, just set standards for what is sold in the state. Why don’t you care about states rights?

Republicans only care about states rights when oppressing women and minorities is at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if California is allowed to enact a law which could potentially change how pork is produced throughout the nation, then other states could respond by enacting their own laws attempting to impose their political views upon the whole nation. , for example, we could be headed toward a future where blue states forbid the sale of goods produced by non-union labor — while red states respond with their own laws forbidding the sale of goods that are made by unionized workers. What about about sates prohibiting the sale of goods produced by unvaccinated workers; or by employers who won’t pay for gender-affirming surgery for transgender employees. Imagine a red state that bans the sale of fruit picked by undocumented immigrants.

Do we really want to go to a place manufacturers might have to choose between selling their products in California (and complying with California's left-leaning rules) or selling their products in Texas (and aligning with Texas’s conservative values).

They already do this in other contexts. So I'm fine with it here. And I support it 10000% if it means changes overall. Those feed lots, birthing barns, slaughterhouses are nothing short of torture chambers and those animals suffer miserably. (Not to mention they treat their employees like garbage). Why should we submit ourselves to the lowest common denominator? It's morally bankrupt, and the CA rule would work to eliminate that, to allow these "farms" to continue.

So you are OK with this because you think this needs to happen a moral statement? Under current law, the answer to this question is “no.” In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning “sodomy.” Among other things, Lawrence held that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.
If you think moral laws are OK Every blue state could potentially ban the sale of goods produced by workers who do not have access to abortion care, on the theory that promoting women’s equality is a moral good. Meanwhile, every red state could ban the sale of goods produced by workers who had an abortion, on the theory that abortions are immoral.
Again do we really want to go to a place manufacturers might have to choose between selling their products in California (and complying with California's left-leaning rules) or selling their products in Texas (and aligning with Texas’s conservative values if California is allowed to effectively decide how pig farms will be run in all 50 states, that could permit the very kind of “economic Balkanization” that the Court warned about in Hughes. Every state could start using their own laws to impose their will on their neighbors.
What is the point of the US at that point each state would have its own requirements

Many laws are based on common decency. Like libel. Or assault. Or domestic abuse. Or even simple stalking/harassment. You are way way off base.