Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of California animal welfare law

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court justices sounded wary Tuesday of California's animal welfare law and its protections for breeding pigs, warning it could set off a wave of state laws that put a wide array of restrictions on products moving nationwide.

Pork producers based in the Midwest challenged the California ballot measure that would ban the sale of pork in the state if it originated with the extreme confining of breeding pigs in narrow metal cages.

They argued that Proposition 12, which was approved by California voters in 2018, is unconstitutional because its "practical effect" would be to force hog farmers across the nation to make costly changes in how they raise and confine their breeding pigs. They noted that more than 99% of the pork sold in California comes from other states.

Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of California animal welfare law

California voters decided in 2018 that pork sold in the state must originate with pigs that have room to turn around in their pens.

news.yahoo.com

Mr. Filburn? Is that you?
There's no question at all that CA's law has an effect on interstate commerce and as such, is, at worst, subject to review by the USSC.
Given past ICC rulings , and the current court, it seems exceptionally likely that the CA restriction will be struck.

(if you don’t get the Filburn reference: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) )

 

[JoeMoma]

I am pro-bacon.

 

[pknopp]

Since there has not been a ruling yet this is said with that understood.

Are they saying it's the Federal governments place to oversee the breeding of animals but not humans?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since there has not been a ruling yet this is said with that understood.
Are they saying it's the Federal governments place to oversee the breeding of animals but not humans?

It might help for you to read the article, and the case I cited
The argument is the CA law places undue burdens and restrictions that will affect the entire US pork industry.

 

[pknopp]

It might help for you to read the article, and the case I cited
The argument is the CA law places undue burdens and restrictions that will affect the entire US pork industry.

OK, so you didn't counter anything I said. They possibly are arguing the Federal government should have a say in the reproduction of pigs, but not humans.

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK, so you didn't counter anything I said.

You didn't present anything for me to counter - you asked a question which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If you read the article I posted, you'd know that.
Try doing that, then discuss the issue.

 

[pknopp]

You didn't present anything for me to counter - you asked a question which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If you read the article I posted, you'd know that.
Try doing that, then discuss the issue.

I read the article. I then stated what I stated.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I am pro-bacon.

It's the candy of all meats.

Yesterday for lunch my smokin' hot Puerto Rican girlfriend made me a grilled cheese sandwich with Boar's Head American cheese and Smithfield applewood-smoked, thick-cut bacon.

It was downright sublime...

 

[Canon Shooter]

I read the article. I then stated what I stated.

And what you stated was a question.

How is someone supposed to counter a question?

 

[pknopp]

And what you stated was a question.

How is someone supposed to counter a question?

You are supposed to address it.

But just so I am clear..........if a state wishes to not have a product sold in state that is produced where they believe the animals are treated poorly, that should not be a states rights issue?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I read the article. I then stated what I stated.

No.... you asked what you asked - a question that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and fully addressed by my response.

Why are you unwilling / unable to discuss the issue presented here?

 

[Resnic]

Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of California animal welfare law

California voters decided in 2018 that pork sold in the state must originate with pigs that have room to turn around in their pens.

news.yahoo.com

Mr. Filburn? Is that you?
There's no question at all that CA's law has an effect on interstate commerce and as such, is, at worst, subject to review by the USSC.
Given past ICC rulings , and the current court, it seems exceptionally likely that the CA restriction will be struck.

(if you don’t get the Filburn reference: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) )

Watched this last night and it showed examples of how California is causing prices on meat and gas to go up in 17 other states because of what they decide to and in some cases cause prices to go up for the country.

He was talking about pork specifically in California on the show.

California's INSANITY makes prices higher for US ALL

Glenn has an idea: Perhaps the rest of the 49 United States should begin completely ignoring California from here on out. Why? In this clip, Glenn shares two stories that prove California’s INSANITY has gone TOO FAR. Because soon California's crazy policies could affect prices for ALL OF US...

www.glennbeck.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

But just so I am clear..........if a state wishes to not have a product sold in state that is produced where they believe the animals are treated poorly, that should not be a states rights issue?

"States rights" applies to areas where the federal government does not have power granted to it by the US Constitution; the regulation of interstate commerce is directly allocated to the federal government.

Interstate Commerce law is -quite- clear here.

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

interstate commerce

www.law.cornell.edu

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11971

 

[M14 Shooter]

Watched this last night and it showed examples of how California is causing prices on meat and gas to go up in 17 other states because of what they decide to and in some cases cause prices to go up for the country.

I have no doubt.
Assuming the USSC strikes this, those regulations are ripe.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are supposed to address it.

I did - with exactly the response it deserved.

 

[pknopp]

"States rights" applies to areas where the federal government does not have power granted to it by the US Constitution; the regulation of interstate commerce is directly allocated to the federal government.

Interstate Commerce law is -quite- clear here.

Commerce Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

interstate commerce

www.law.cornell.edu

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11971

California is not restricting any other state from treating animals poorly.

We can look at automobiles. Manufacturers have long had to produce cars that meet the stricter emissions of California. Now they are calling for stricter requirements on treating animals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

California is not restricting any other state from treating animals poorly.

You choose to not understand the issue.

 

[pknopp]

You choose to not understand the issue.

You refuse to be consistent. How is it that a state can require stricter emissions on a vehicle but not stricter requirements on keeping animals?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You refuse to be consistent.

Thank you for making it clear I need not waste any more time on you.

 

[Concerned American]

It might help for you to read the article, and the case I cited
The argument is the CA law places undue burdens and restrictions that will affect the entire US pork industry.

Screw CA, let them eat plant based bacon--more bacon for the rest of us.