Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
Council v. Ross.

California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
interstate commerce clause.

The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
appellate courts!

I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
read it.

On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
> Council v. Ross.
>
> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
> interstate commerce clause.
>
> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
> appellate courts!
>
> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
> read it.

I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
law.

The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not only
having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal with
some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
laws that you had no vote or say in passing.

On 5/11/2023 5:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>> Council v. Ross.
>>
>> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>> interstate commerce clause.
>>
>> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>> appellate courts!
>>
>> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>> read it.
>
> I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
> Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
> law.
>
> The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not only
> having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal with
> some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
> don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
> laws that you had no vote or say in passing.

Let me guess: That applies only to farms selling to California...

On May 11, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 5/11/2023 5:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>>> Council v. Ross.
>>>
>>> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>>> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>>> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>>> interstate commerce clause.
>>>
>>> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>>> appellate courts!
>>>
>>> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>>> read it.
>>
>> I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
>> Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
>> law.
>>
>> The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not
>> only
>> having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal
>> with
>> some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
>> don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
>> laws that you had no vote or say in passing.
>
> Let me guess: That applies only to farms selling to California...

Or who sell to anyone who might then turn around and sell to California.

On 5/11/2023 6:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 11, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2023 5:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>>>> Council v. Ross.
>>>>
>>>> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>>>> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>>>> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>>>> interstate commerce clause.
>>>>
>>>> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>>>> appellate courts!
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>>>> read it.
>>>
>>> I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
>>> Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
>>> law.
>>>
>>> The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not
>>> only
>>> having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal
>>> with
>>> some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
>>> don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
>>> laws that you had no vote or say in passing.
>>
>> Let me guess: That applies only to farms selling to California...
>
> Or who sell to anyone who might then turn around and sell to California.

Yes. If the farm claims it's fit for California, it has to be.

On Thu, 11 May 2023 18:25:46 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>On 5/11/2023 6:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On May 11, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/11/2023 5:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>>>>> Council v. Ross.
>>>>>
>>>>> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>>>>> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>>>>> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>>>>> interstate commerce clause.
>>>>>
>>>>> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>>>>> appellate courts!
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>>>>> read it.
>>>>
>>>> I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
>>>> Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
>>>> law.
>>>>
>>>> The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not
>>>> only
>>>> having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal
>>>> with
>>>> some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
>>>> don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
>>>> laws that you had no vote or say in passing.
>>>
>>> Let me guess: That applies only to farms selling to California...
>>
>> Or who sell to anyone who might then turn around and sell to California.
>
>Yes. If the farm claims it's fit for California, it has to be.
>

That doesn't seem to work if I'm running a farm selling to a large
chain as I have no control over where the chain sends the meat. So
California has no control over what I do with the farm and no cause to
try and inspect it. They may try and do something with the national
chain but I expect that isn't going to go over well. No more so than
all of the requirements on Apple have worked out where they give lip
service to following the rules but every few years there are stories
of suppliers to Apple breaking the rules.

On 5/11/2023 6:30 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2023 18:25:46 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2023 6:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On May 11, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2023 5:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>>>>>> Council v. Ross.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>>>>>> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>>>>>> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>>>>>> interstate commerce clause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>>>>>> appellate courts!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
>>>>> Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
>>>>> law.
>>>>>
>>>>> The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not
>>>>> only
>>>>> having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal
>>>>> with
>>>>> some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
>>>>> don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
>>>>> laws that you had no vote or say in passing.
>>>>
>>>> Let me guess: That applies only to farms selling to California...
>>>
>>> Or who sell to anyone who might then turn around and sell to California.
>>
>> Yes. If the farm claims it's fit for California, it has to be.
>>
>
> That doesn't seem to work if I'm running a farm selling to a large
> chain as I have no control over where the chain sends the meat. So
> California has no control over what I do with the farm and no cause to
> try and inspect it. They may try and do something with the national
> chain but I expect that isn't going to go over well. No more so than
> all of the requirements on Apple have worked out where they give lip
> service to following the rules but every few years there are stories
> of suppliers to Apple breaking the rules.

Yes, I'm assuming that declarations of Cali-fitness are issued all the
way up the line ...so that, e.g., a vendor who claims certification must
conform by using products only from vendors who claim likewise.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>>Council v. Ross.

>>California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>>requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>>California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>>interstate commerce clause.

>>The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>>appellate courts!
>>I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>>read it.

>I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
>Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
>law.

>The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not only
>having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal with
>some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
>don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
>laws that you had no vote or say in passing.

That's why I'm not getting the "not an intentional infringement" bit at all.

RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 17:50:33 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>>> Council v. Ross.
>>>
>>> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>>> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>>> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>>> interstate commerce clause.
>>>
>>> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>>> appellate courts!
>>>
>>> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>>> read it.
>> I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
>> Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
>> law.
>>
>> The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not only
>> having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal with
>> some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
>> don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
>> laws that you had no vote or say in passing.
>
> Anything shipped anywhere in the U.S. now has to comply with a California
> warning about how everything can give you cancer. the list is long and
> miindless. So, even if California never sees the product, outfits like
> Amazon and Ebay have to carry "the warning." It is lunacy.

California really is tumor on the ass of America, isn't it?

On 5/11/23 10:54 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
> Council v. Ross.
>
> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
> interstate commerce clause.
>
> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
> appellate courts!
>
> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
> read it.

Thank God I'm vegan.

On 5/11/23 4:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>> Council v. Ross.
>>
>> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>> interstate commerce clause.
>>
>> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>> appellate courts!
>>
>> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>> read it.
>
> I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
> Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
> law.
>
> The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not only
> having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal with
> some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
> don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
> laws that you had no vote or say in passing.

Wait, what? You're *still* confused on how a representative democracy
works? Is another insurrection necessary then?

On 5/11/23 8:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 17:50:33 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>>>> Council v. Ross.
>>>>
>>>> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>>>> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>>>> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>>>> interstate commerce clause.
>>>>
>>>> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>>>> appellate courts!
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>>>> read it.
>>> I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
>>> Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
>>> law.
>>>
>>> The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not only
>>> having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal with
>>> some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
>>> don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
>>> laws that you had no vote or say in passing.
>>
>> Anything shipped anywhere in the U.S. now has to comply with a California
>> warning about how everything can give you cancer. the list is long and
>> miindless. So, even if California never sees the product, outfits like
>> Amazon and Ebay have to carry "the warning." It is lunacy.
>
> California really is tumor on the ass of America, isn't it?

If you really live there then fer sure.

On 5/11/23 7:52 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 17:50:33 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
>>> Council v. Ross.
>>>
>>> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
>>> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
>>> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
>>> interstate commerce clause.
>>>
>>> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
>>> appellate courts!
>>>
>>> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
>>> read it.
>> I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
>> Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
>> law.
>>
>> The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not only
>> having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal with
>> some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
>> don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
>> laws that you had no vote or say in passing.
>
> Anything shipped anywhere in the U.S. now has to comply with a California warning

Cite? Prove you're not shitposting per usual.

about how everything can give you cancer. the list is long and
miindless. So, even if California never sees the product, outfits like
Amazon and Ebay have to carry "the warning." It is lunacy.

On Thu, 11 May 2023 08:54:21 -0700, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
> Council v. Ross.
>
> California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
> requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
> California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
> interstate commerce clause.

California is improving the quality of pork with this law?
What's to complain about?

>
> The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
> appellate courts!
>
> I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
> read it.

On Thu, 11 May 2023 17:52:33 -0700, RichA wrote:

> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 17:50:33 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On May 11, 2023 at 8:54:21 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Supreme Court upholds Ninth Circuit opinion in National Pork Producers
> > > Council v. Ross.
> > >
> > > California's new legal restrictions on how pigs are raised on farms,
> > > requiring space to move around otherwise pork cannot be sold in
> > > California, are not an intentional infringement upon the dormant
> > > interstate commerce clause.
> > >
> > > The law of what's not written continues to be analyzed and enforced by
> > > appellate courts!
> > >
> > > I guess I'll have to track down the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and
> > > read it.
> > I read that California actually sends state inspectors out to Iowa and
> > Nebraska and Oklahoma to inspect their farms for compliance with California
> > law.
> >
> > The stones on these people in Sacramento. Imagine being a farmer and not only
> > having officials from your own state come around but now you have to deal with
> > some asshole from California demanding access to your property-- a state you
> > don't live in, pay no taxes to-- to make sure you're complying with *their*
> > laws that you had no vote or say in passing.
>
> Anything shipped anywhere in the U.S. now has to comply with a California warning about how everything can give you cancer. the list is long and miindless. So, even if California never sees the product, outfits like Amazon and Ebay have to carry "the warning." It is lunacy.

The Prop 65 warning is a fraud. The producer is supposed to list
the cancer causing substances and California is supposed to
maintain a public database of cancer causing substances and the
products they are in. Neither has ever started doing that.

In <0001HW.2A0F1B880060472B30B2F738F@news.giganews.com> Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> writes:

[snip]

>> Anything shipped anywhere in the U.S. now has to comply with a California warning about how everything can give you cancer. the list is long and miindless. So, even if California never sees the product, outfits like Amazon and Ebay have to carry "the warning." It is lunacy.

>The Prop 65 warning is a fraud. The producer is supposed to list
>the cancer causing substances and California is supposed to
>maintain a public database of cancer causing substances and the
>products they are in. Neither has ever started doing that.

Liar, liar, pants on fire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list_of_chemicals

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Fri, 12 May 2023 18:18:43 -0700, danny burstein wrote:

> In<0001HW.2A0F1B880060472B30B2F738F@news.giganews.com> Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Anything shipped anywhere in the U.S. now has to comply with a California warning about how everything can give you cancer. the list is long and miindless. So, even if California never sees the product, outfits like Amazon and Ebay have to carry "the warning." It is lunacy.
>
> > The Prop 65 warning is a fraud. The producer is supposed to list
> > the cancer causing substances and California is supposed to
> > maintain a public database of cancer causing substances and the
> > products they are in. Neither has ever started doing that.
>
> Liar, liar, pants on fire:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list_of_chemicals

That is not a database of products and cancer causing
chemicals but a list of chemicals in isolation.

The intent of Prop 65 is a disclosure law, so the warning is
a fraud, as it discloses nothing, making it worse than useless.

Better companies disclose their cancer causing chemicals on
their own volition, lesser companies just use the warning.

On Fri, 12 May 2023 18:32:52 -0700, Pluted Pup wrote:

> On Fri, 12 May 2023 18:18:43 -0700, danny burstein wrote:
>
> > In<0001HW.2A0F1B880060472B30B2F738F@news.giganews.com> Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> writes:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Anything shipped anywhere in the U.S. now has to comply with a California warning about how everything can give you cancer. the list is long and miindless. So, even if California never sees the product, outfits like Amazon and Ebay have to carry "the warning." It is lunacy.
> >
> > > The Prop 65 warning is a fraud. The producer is supposed to list
> > > the cancer causing substances and California is supposed to
> > > maintain a public database of cancer causing substances and the
> > > products they are in. Neither has ever started doing that.
> >
> > Liar, liar, pants on fire:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list_of_chemicals
>
> That is not a database of products and cancer causing
> chemicals but a list of chemicals in isolation.
>
> The intent of Prop 65 is a disclosure law, so the warning is
> a fraud, as it discloses nothing, making it worse than useless.
>
> Better companies disclose their cancer causing chemicals on
> their own volition, lesser companies just use the warning.

Another list of the chemicals:

https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/chemicals