California's basic decency to pigs law - in the supreme court

[fskimospy]

Sorry, no such implications in Calvinball.

Yeah I mean we all know how this goes. Texas attempting to use its buying power to influence other states is fine, California doing the same is not.

 

[sdifox]

https://cdn.saffire.com/files.ashx?t=fg&rid=CowPalace&f=PDF_pork_fact_sheet_pg_1.pdf

Although California makes up less than 1% of the total US pork production, it accounts for 13% of the national pork consumption.

Maybe they can raise their own hogs as per the CA law requirements and not import from other states.

Cali has about 12% of US population so 13% of US pork consumption is not that far out of average.

 

[fskimospy]

Cali has about 12% of US population so 13% of US pork consumption is not that far out of average.

If you think states should be self sufficient you should ask North Korea how that’s going.

 

[sdifox]

If you think states should be self sufficient you should ask North Korea how that’s going.

Where did you see me say that?

 

[sactoking]

Wasn't there an argument by ISPs that California and Washington couldn't enforce state-level net neutrality because it would affect ISPs' operations in other states? And didn't several courts side with the states? So this should be settled precedent, right?

 

[ElFenix]

If California produces no pork, then I think they can do this since it is not being used as a trade barrier, rather a higher standard, just like CARB (had CAFE there)

the difference being that CARB is expressly allowed under the various clean air acts.

https://cdn.saffire.com/files.ashx?t=fg&rid=CowPalace&f=PDF_pork_fact_sheet_pg_1.pdf

Although California makes up less than 1% of the total US pork production, it accounts for 13% of the national pork consumption.

Maybe they can raise their own hogs as per the CA law requirements and not import from other states.

preferencing in state producers to the detriment of out of state is about as textbook a commerce clause violation as you can make. that's usually how you get one.

 

[Thump553]

the difference being that CARB is expressly allowed under the various clean air acts.


preferencing in state producers to the detriment of out of state is about as textbook a commerce clause violation as you can make. that's usually how you get one.

If CARB was unconstitutional, the fact that it was expressly allowed under federal law wouldn't mean anything.

 

[JWade]

Or are you not a fan of states' rights?

Ahh, states' rights. California can pass laws how it wants, it affects california only. The repeal of Roe vs Wade allowed the states to make their own laws on abortion. It's their right to make their own laws, that is what the repeal did. Lots of people diagree with lots of states and their trigger laws, but that is their right. Just like people diagree with California's pork laws they are wanting to pass. It's their right as a state to make their own laws. Which you happen to agree with, but when other states pass laws you disagree with, which is within their right, then those states are wrong and get called names.

 

[MrSquished]

Ahh, states' rights. California can pass laws how it wants, it affects california only. The repeal of Roe vs Wade allowed the states to make their own laws on abortion. It's their right to make their own laws, that is what the repeal did. Lots of people diagree with lots of states and their trigger laws, but that is their right. Just like people diagree with California's pork laws they are wanting to pass. It's their right as a state to make their own laws. Which you happen to agree with, but when other states pass laws you disagree with, which is within their right, then those states are wrong and get called names.

I think it's pretty clear most of us believe in a good balance of federal laws and states rights.

 

[JWade]

I think it's pretty clear most of us believe in a good balance of federal laws and states rights.

As long as that balance is in line with what you believe they should be right? There is no federal law on abortion, there were just Supreme Court rulings concerning it. So lack of federal law, every state now has their own laws concerning abortion. I would think you would support the repeal of Roe Vs Wade, no federal law for abortion, it gives the states back their right to make their own laws covering it, since there is a lack of federal law. Or does Supreme Court rulings only matter when they align with your beliefs? The pork case shouldnt be at the supreme court, clearly a state issue, no need for it to be there. No federal law for abortion, no need for it to be at the supreme court, which the repeal did, returned the rights to the states in the absence of federal law.

go ahead, and attack me, i know you want to, because you disagree with what i said, even though it is accurate

 

[Fenixgoon]

As long as that balance is in line with what you believe they should be right? There is no federal law on abortion, there were just Supreme Court rulings concerning it. So lack of federal law, every state now has their own laws concerning abortion. I would think you would support the repeal of Roe Vs Wade, no federal law for abortion, it gives the states back their right to make their own laws covering it, since there is a lack of federal law. Or does Supreme Court rulings only matter when they align with your beliefs? The pork case shouldnt be at the supreme court, clearly a state issue, no need for it to be there. No federal law for abortion, no need for it to be at the supreme court, which the repeal did, returned the rights to the states in the absence of federal law.

go ahead, and attack me, i know you want to, because you disagree with what i said, even though it is accurate

it's almost like human rights should be a nation-wide guarantee...

 

[MrSquished]

As long as that balance is in line with what you believe they should be right? There is no federal law on abortion, there were just Supreme Court rulings concerning it. So lack of federal law, every state now has their own laws concerning abortion. I would think you would support the repeal of Roe Vs Wade, no federal law for abortion, it gives the states back their right to make their own laws covering it, since there is a lack of federal law. Or does Supreme Court rulings only matter when they align with your beliefs? The pork case shouldnt be at the supreme court, clearly a state issue, no need for it to be there. No federal law for abortion, no need for it to be at the supreme court, which the repeal did, returned the rights to the states in the absence of federal law.

go ahead, and attack me, i know you want to, because you disagree with what i said, even though it is accurate

I appreciate your lightheartedness with which you support oppressing women and girls.

Clearly abortion rights need to be a federal issue.

I actually think basic animal rights should be a federal issue as well.

It's time to bring back some basic decency in this country without letting the horrific GQP party continue to chip away at basic and decent fundamental rights and morality.

 

[sdifox]

the difference being that CARB is expressly allowed under the various clean air acts.


preferencing in state producers to the detriment of out of state is about as textbook a commerce clause violation as you can make. that's usually how you get one.

It's not preferencing when your in state producers don't make up ten percent of the production volume needed.

 

[ElFenix]

If CARB was unconstitutional, the fact that it was expressly allowed under federal law wouldn't mean anything.

i guess that's true but it's a but it's also neither here nor there. the constitution doesn't give congress the exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce. if there wasn't an express allowance a court would do a regular commerce clause analysis of whether the federal legislation was intended to preempt, implicitly approve, or leave the state law in place (i.e., CARB). with an express allowance, that's not an issue.

It's not preferencing when your in state producers don't make up ten percent of the production volume needed.

we're discussing pcgeek's hypothetical. and even so, that very well could be preferencing, in order to do something like get a bigger share of hog farming.

 

[Paratus]

it's almost like human rights should be a nation-wide guarantee...

No. I think it’s good that @JWade ’s genitals are governed by the state. I’m sure he agrees that it’s up to state law what he does with them.

 

[senseamp]

I have no confidence in this supreme court to decide anything on the merits.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As long as that balance is in line with what you believe they should be right? There is no federal law on abortion, there were just Supreme Court rulings concerning it. So lack of federal law, every state now has their own laws concerning abortion. I would think you would support the repeal of Roe Vs Wade, no federal law for abortion, it gives the states back their right to make their own laws covering it, since there is a lack of federal law. Or does Supreme Court rulings only matter when they align with your beliefs? The pork case shouldnt be at the supreme court, clearly a state issue, no need for it to be there. No federal law for abortion, no need for it to be at the supreme court, which the repeal did, returned the rights to the states in the absence of federal law.

go ahead, and attack me, i know you want to, because you disagree with what i said, even though it is accurate

The Row v Wade did not legalize abortion. It stated that women have an unalienable right to control their body. That is what this court tossed out. This court just tossed out an unalienable right. Based on this decision a state could pass a law mandating blood donations, or even kidney donations. You no longer have a right to decide what you do with your own life. The state now decides that for you.

What other rights might it decide are no longer valid? Do we just throw away the Bill of Rights and let the States decide what freedoms people get? If you don't like it you can always move! Unless they take that right away, like many states are trying to do to women that might be pregnant.

Long ago we decided that there are some things the State can make laws about. We wrote a fancy document about it and everything. This Court decided it didn't like that and took a shit on our Republic.

 

[pcgeek11]

what you said - or rather, how you said it - says everything.

you didn't say california wasn't within its rights. but somehow california exercising its rights is a problem for you - thus the "maybe they should increase their pork production instead"

it's extremely telling that what you said follows an essentially identical format to popular conservative phrases such as:
if you don't like (insert government policy), then maybe you should (leave/go back to your own country).
if you don't like being poor, then maybe you should (invest more/work harder)

Like I said your are just making up shit in your head.

 

[pcgeek11]

Cali has about 12% of US population so 13% of US pork consumption is not that far out of average.

Never said it was out of average.

 

[pcgeek11]

we're discussing pcgeek's hypothetical. and even so, that very well could be preferencing, in order to do something like get a bigger share of hog farming.

I think what I said in being misinterpreted.

I think California ( or any other state ) has every right to dictate the requirements for bringing pork into the state for sale or raising pork in the state for sale.

If out of state breeders do not want to comply they cannot sell their pork in the state. That is not preferencing IMO as out of state breeders can sell in the state they just have to comply with the state requirements for breeding.

Then if out of state breeders do not wish to comply that is their choice. Then as California only breeds 1% of pork in state and they consume 13% they would need to increase in state production to make up the difference.

 

[Sunburn74]

Fascinating.
Can a state boycott goods and services?

Whether CA is right or wrong to do so... the question is whether they can do this in the first place. Anyone have a good reason why CA cannot do this?

I thought the SCOTUS recently ruled that California could have higher car emission standards, something that forced car makers to basically choose whether to sell in California or increase their standards. I'm not really sure how this is any different. Even more so they are not setting standards lower than federal regulations. Ultimately unless Congress writes some cleverly phrased regulation that specifically prevents states from adding additional regulations I don't see how this case goes on to win, particularly if the SCOTUS is to actually stick to it's literalist positions on how the constitution should be interpreted.

I mean we already have this with federal crimes and state crimes in a way. Federal crimes set the minimum you will be hit with and state charges can be added on top.

 

[MrSquished]

SCOTUS upheld Prop 12. Good.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Prop 12 is a win against factory farming. But the pigs’ lives will still suck.

Upholding Prop 12 could create a bold new era of animal advocacy, but only if we go further.

www.vox.com

 

[Drach]

Of course this ruffles chucks feathers.
WE voted for this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1656686489504296961

 

[sportage]

Old Grassley is upset because he didn't get a cut of the moola. Grassley should be confined to the same crate his iOwa farm friends confine their little piggies in. They say pigs are very intelligent, obviously more so than Chuck Grassley.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course this ruffles chucks feathers.
WE voted for this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1656686489504296961

It’s funny that he’s mad that California is regulating what is sold within California. This should have been 9-0.

As far as I can tell the argument against it was ‘because California is big it should have less ability to regulate itself’, which makes no sense.