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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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).[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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
 [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics