Let me make it clear:

I am not a resident of New York … so maybe not my business?

I am not a lawyer or judge, or hold a law degree…. so maybe I don’t know what I am talking about?

What am I?

I am a wine lover and enthusiast, and a believer that if something doesn’t make sense .. it isn’t true! (thanks Judge Judy for that one

So I find it fitting on this occaison and celebration - the 4th of July 2009 - to comment on a recent ruling by a three-panel judge in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which illogically upheld a similar judgement from 2007 regarding restricting direct shipment of wine to consumers in New York from out of state retailers when the state of New York allows shipment from in state wine retailers.

If I recall in Granholm vs. Heald in 2005 the court ruled that a state cannot discriminate between in state and out of state wineries – that if the state allows in state wineries to ship directly to consumers, it must also allow out of state wineries to do the same. The issue was pitting the right of states to control the sale and distribution of alcohol (set after Prohibition) against the the Commerce Clause in the Constitution (hence how fitting on the 4th of July!).

Help me out here everyone:  How can it be constitutional for a winery to be able to ship and not a retailer? Isn’t this the exact same principle coming into play, the only difference is the shipment would come from a retailer and not the winery itself?

Steve Heimoff in his blog “Wine suppliers are not the new Mafia provides some good insight into the decision.

Alright .. of course I know the issue: MONEY and MONOPOLY… that’s it in  nutshell.

Forget about underage drinking and tax losses. Both of these can easily be accommodated as they already have in states that allow out of state shipments.

Unfortunately, whenever money and control are at stake there is going to be a struggle.

Hey .. let’s look on the bright side .. the law firms involved will make a mint (no reference to the Federal Reserve intended !