2018-68
18-96
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association, Petitioner v. Russell F. Thomas, Executive Director of the Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission, et al.

Summary Analysis

R-68
DATE: 2019-06-26
DOCKET: 18-96
NAME: Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association, Petitioner v. Russell F. Thomas, Executive Director of the Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission, et al.
WORTHY: True

OPINION: Court
   AUTHOR: Alito
   JOINING: Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
   GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 37

OPINION: Dissenting
   AUTHOR: Gorsuch
   JOINING: Thomas
   GOOD: No
PAGES: 15


Case Commentary

In my (totally uneducated) opinion (so, like, I'm not a lawyer or anything remotely similar; as in, my legal opinion means absolutely nothing to absolutely no one), This Case boils down to a contradiction (call it a discrepancy) between the Commerce Clause (States can't implement Protectionist Policies) and the 21^st Amendment, which repealed the 18^th Amendment, which in turn prohibited the sale of alcohol, but which granted The States certain rights over the sale of alcohol in their State.



I take the side of the Commerce Clause, as does The Court, while The Dissent, respectfully (one must presume) disagrees.



In my ever so humble opinion (don't count on it, not that humble part, at least), it's a clear and obvious violation of the Commerce Clause to have a Residency Requirement for Conducting Business in a State and how anyone could believe otherwise is beyond me... yes, even after reading The Dissent's Opinion.



And although The Court is split in its decision (7 to 2), this split comes after two of the provisions of the law at hand were thrown out. These later two provisions being so obviously illegal (i.e. Un-Constitutional) that no one (not a single person in the whole of the world) tried to defend them.

It should be against the law (call it Treason) to vote for a law so obviously contrary to the principles of this Country that no one (not even those who voted the law into existence) was willing to stand up for that law in a court of law.



As I read the slip (the discussion became a bit nested and convoluted... and my patience wore more than a bit thin, so I'm not entirely convinced of the accuracy of what follows, but), it appears to me (but not necessarily to any representatives of the Local Law Enforcement Community) that a State cannot prevent anyone from buying liquor in another State and consuming it in the privacy of their own home, hotel room, or some similarly situated private place... presumably regardless of one's residency in either State.

It begs the question as to why a person could not buy Marijuana in a State where it was legal and consume it in another where it was not?



It's probably because there is a Constitutional Amendment that specifically addresses Alcohol and not one that specifically addresses Marijuana. But as it is the same sort of thing in my book (both are psychotropics... or at least, I would categorize both of them as such), I don't see the difference.