Supreme Court on California and pig-abuse

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Supreme Court on California and pig-abuse

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
  • #2190429

    While the case dealt with pigs, the law in question covers other animals, and the legal issue dealt with the extent a state can regulate the goods sold within the state even if not produced there. This may affect us in several ways.

    Obviously if other states or the Federal government pass similar laws, it will impact on Yiden, and we should note that the laws themselves were sponsored by groups who want to outlaw raising animals for food (in particular slaughtering them for food). There groups are also advocating a ban on kosher slaughter.

    The “WOKE” hope this will forced the whole country will adopt California’s system. IF it doesn’t, California will need to establish a system not unlike our kosher supervision to certify how farm animals are raised in other states, which will seriously increase food costs in California. It probably will result in banning Israeli food exports in California since they won’t have the necessary “woke” hecksher. California feels that enough states will support their standards that it force all manufacturers to cater to them, rather than make a special supply chain to serve California.

    Allowing states to ban products based on how they were produced, even if the quality of the product was not impacted, opens the door for a wide variety of state regulations heretofore unheard of. What if California bans imports from states with “right to work law”, or Texas bans imports from states with compulsory union membership? What about bans on stores that don’t meet California’s standard for employment of preferred minorities (which, by definition, does not include us). Can a “red” state ban sale of abortifacient drugs? Can blue states ban movies and books that are politically incorrect.

    The Supreme Court suggested that the Congress might address this issue, which probably would involve using the Commerce Clause to establish national standards that override state standards, which probably is in our interests since at present most frum Jews live in “blue” states which are increasingly likely to support anti-Semitic WOKE policies.


    You raise a good point, that this more than a ‘one state’s law’ issue. And then stick in a bunch of other stuff. It’s not worth responding to.


    Reminder that it is Justice Gorsuch, the author of the opinion, who has consistently pushed back as to how the dormant commerce clause can be applied. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion holds that California’s law on pork sales is strictly kosher because it doesn’t intentionally discriminate economically against out-of-state businesses, unlike other state laws that the Court has struck down. Gorsuch along with conservative Justices Thomas and Barrett were true to their federalist beliefs and did not find any Constitutional basis for federal preemption of a state’s policy preferences on how food sold in that state should be produced. To rule otherwise, would grant the federal government powers to override state laws on virtually unlimited matters of varying import, something that seems to have escaped the Chief Justice.

    Justice Kavanaugh puts it best: California “has attempted, in essence, to unilaterally impose its moral and policy preferences for pig farming and pork production on the rest of the Nation” and “propounded a ‘California knows best’ economic philosophy” that “undermines federalism and the authority of individual States.”

    Justice Gorsuch writes that Congress, under its Commerce Clause authority, can pass a law that overrules state regulation like California’s. That’s a good message to send to Capitol Hill. But until that happy day, and especially in this polarized era, the majority opinion will embolden more states to impose their social policies on the commerce of other states.

    The Court’s majority also offers no clear guidance to lower-court judges who will have to decide challenges to those state laws. Don’t be surprised if the policy preferences of judges replace the judge-made doctrine the Court has now thrown over the side.


    you have a point, but I wonder whether this is a healthy backlash.

    Original setup was that states had jurisdiction on most things, and feds insured interoperability via commerce clause. Later, feds abused commerce clause to regulate almost everything, and states lost most of their power – and that is why everyone is obsessed with Presidential elections. a President is supposed to be someone who faithfully executes the laws … Chief Shoter, not a big deal

    so, npw, states are finding how to use the legal system to get some of their power back.


    For over 20 years, California used its more stringent state guidelines on auto emissions to push auto makers to make more efficient vehicles than they otherwise would have been required under EPA federal guidelines unde rboth Democratic and Republican administrations. Likewise, Red states are now trying to impose their own limits on out-of-state mail-order abortion drugs and found some obscure Federal Judge in Yenavelt Texas to issue an order restricting nationwide sales of that drug to impose their moral values on All. States’ right when it works our way but otherwise federal preemption .


    This will only increase the cost for the consumer. While they maybe able to control what is sold in local stores these items can easily be bought on the internet from out of state. This is going to be difficult to enforce because the meat processing plants buy the pigs from farmers who may not be in compliance.


    Why would we be concerned about the cost of pig meat?

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.