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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
Except it involves mostly interstate commerce, as it applies to all pork producers in the country who do business in CA, and CA produces virtually no pork so it comes almost entirely from other states. Sounds like a matter of federal jurisdiction.
I don't know the specifics of this law, but it doesn't seem like setting basic standards of goods allowed to be sold within the state would violate interstate commerce. I'd think it'd be similar to CARB, or really out there bounce houses (and other inflatables) in New Jersey.

ETA: just realized this was an old thread.
 
Last edited:

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
Life in prison without parole.

Before you laugh, that is what Oklahoma does* life in prison for the possession of 20 grams of marijuana.


*technically, it is two years to life, depending on what the mood of the judge is
I'm pretty sure that isn't true anymore. We passed criminal justice reform in 2016 that reduced a lot of felonies to misdemeanors. Also have "medical" weed, so it's basically legal now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drach

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,951
16,210
126

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
THIS is what you get when a state goes republican.
iOwa gov Covid Kim Reynolds (Covid-Kim) is now being sued via class action for holding back the Biden pandemic-relief unemployment benefits. This should be fun.


The skinny ass bitch thinks she is the queen of iOwa and can do whatever she pleases. Forcing children to work adult jobs, giving away public school funds to private christian schools, and get this.... just signed a bill allowing iOwa dairy farmers to sell their milk RAW, unpasteurized, to the public. I had to ask WHATS IN IT FOR KIM because for her to support THIS INSANITY there has to be $$$$$ in it for Kim Reynolds personally or she would never support it.

Think of it. Drinking raw unpasteurized milk from iOwa?
Oh yes.... California is absolutely correct to crack down on iOwa farm products sold in California.
And you don't even want to know what iOwa allows in their hamburgers. Let's put it this way, it's a natural body function every other state flushes down the toilet.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: hal2kilo

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
And you don't even want to know what iOwa allows in their hamburgers. Let's put it this way, it's a natural body function every other state flushes down the toilet.

This statement is incorrect. Just for clarity as this is what the USDA says:


Many states have their own inspection programs that are applicable for meats produced and sold within their borders only. State inspection programs must enforce requirements at least equal to those of Federal inspection laws.


Ground beef exported to the U.S. from USDA-approved eligible nations must meet all safety standards applied to foods produced in the United States. They must employ equivalent sanitary measures that provide the same level of protection against food hazards as is achieved domestically.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
I don't know the specifics of this law, but it doesn't seem like setting basic standards of goods allowed to be sold within the state would violate interstate commerce. I'd think it'd be similar to CARB, or really out there bounce houses (and other inflatables) in New Jersey.

ETA: just realized this was an old thread.
I don't see how it violates interstate commerce. It's not a protectionist regulation and it's at least equivalent to the federal standard.

If California is allowed to completely ban the sale of pork, why can't it regulate pork within it's borders if the regulations are reasonable and non protectionist?
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,120
10,946
136
I don't see how it violates interstate commerce. It's not a protectionist regulation and it's at least equivalent to the federal standard.

If California is allowed to completely ban the sale of pork, why can't it regulate pork within it's borders if the regulations are reasonable and non protectionist?
I thought conservatives were champions of states' rights?
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
I assume you mean CARB?
Which applies to vehicles only sold in CA. CARB is not enforced outside CA unless other states opt to use that as their emissions requirements as well. CA doesn't force CARB onto other states.

CAFE is at the federal level

Don't most manufacturers use the CARB standard anyway, as it would be more expensive to produce multiple variants of the same car? Seems like this is the same kind of thing.

Edit: old thread I guess. Honestly pretty surprised this SC didn't cave to their corporate overlords.
 
Last edited:

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,120
10,946
136
Don't most manufacturers use the CARB standard anyway, as it would be more expensive to produce multiple variants of the same car? Seems like this is the same kind of thing.

Edit: old thread I guess. Honestly pretty surprised this SC didn't cave to their corporate overlords.
i can't speak for all manufacturers, but in some instances it may be cheaper to develop two product variants (one for EPA, one for CARB) due to the additional cost in components of meeting CARB and associated marketshare or lackthereof. or same thing with Euro variants vs. EPA vs. CARB. the least strict requirement means the least amount of engine tuning, calibration, and hardware, which translates to lower costs.

now, i think that's a fucking stupid approach, but it's AN approach.