Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Hi there... Can you please quickly check to make sure your email address is up to date here? Just in case we need to reach out to you or you lose your password. Muchero thanks!

SCOTUS ruling in CA law on pork production

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by OklahomaGator, May 25, 2023.

  1. ncargat1

    ncargat1 VIP Member

    14,461
    6,326
    3,353
    Dec 11, 2009
    In theory, I am sure that is true. However, this is the same country that just fined Pilgrim Pride $100M for price fixing of poultry during the pandemic? And then stood by as the government awarded them nearly $140M is new contracts for USDA food programs because "there are so few competitors"?

    Sorry, not implying that you are wrong about anything, but in the real world of pork and poultry here in North Carolina/Virginia, I am willing to bet that nothing changes other than some small superficial farms, the amount of bribing paid out and how much more expensive pork becomes as a result of this.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    88,949
    26,791
    4,613
    Apr 3, 2007
    The still cannot regulate other states... They can demand what they want, but other states don't have comply... nor do they have to sell them pork.

    In the end the people in the state of California will find pork hard to find on their store shelves. They knew the price would spike thought the roof, and they knew it would make it far more expensive to buy pork in California.
     
  3. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,290
    366
    1,993
    Jun 14, 2014
    Other forms of government have their own problems, though. Our tripartite representative system allows a super-minority of interest groups to drive abusive policy decisions that would never have a chance at passing a popular referendum. And not only can these minorities remove rights at any moment, they can exploit the system to prevent majorities from feasibly restoring those rights for generations.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,248
    1,905
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    Ok, maybe its not telling since I already knew you favored some kind of counter-majoritarian consensus type decision making. The examples you are giving have been done without 50% of the population in a system designed to supress popular will via geographical representation and countermajoritarian institutions in the form of courts or bicameral legislatures, so would it be worse if it had more popular will behind it? Why is 30% blocking something superior to 50% I dont understand. You cant even argue this system places responsbile people in power to supress passions, it doesnt do that either. Its the worst of both worlds.