Skip to comments.Supreme Court Justices Grill Coca-Cola Over Scarcity Of Pomegranates In Pomegranate Juice
Posted on 04/23/2014 1:35:57 AM PDT by SMGFan
As the top judicial body in the land, the United States Supreme Court has asked some pretty tough questions in its day. But yesterday the justices had a question for Coca-Cola that doesnt seem like it should be so tricky: Shouldnt a juice labeled as pomegranate and blueberry actually include a fair amount of, um, pomegranates? And blueberries? To make the whole thing a bit weird(er), the issue of a Minute Maid Juice product sold as a Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices came up after POM Wonderful sued Coca-Cola, claiming that label is misleading and could hurt sales for its own 100% pomegranate juice, reports Reuters.
(Excerpt) Read more at consumerist.com ...
The fact this went to the Supreme Court is beyond pathetic.
More Pathetic: Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed, chiming in, I think its relevant for us to ask whether people are cheated in buying this product.
We could say the same thing about OBAMACARE yet it was forced down our throat.
Exaactly. At least Americans have a choice not to buy it. They also refused to hear the Arizona case.
There is a difference between
Pomegranate FLAVORED Juice.
Ever try and eat a pomegranate, what a pain.
I didn’t know CocaCola had a product with pomegranate juice.
I’m a bit surprised that the Supreme Court would make a stink about the lack of pomegranate in CocaCola. When considering healthy products, the brand Coca Cola is at the bottom of the list when it comes to healthy. It’s a fun food, nothing more.
True, but they have blend on the label twice and flavored as well. Why this even made it into the first court, I’ll never understand. All the other company has to do is to point out the scarcity of the named fruits.
This case should have been sent back to the lower dumbass court with a one-sentence reply. “The label complies with the current law so do not waste our time with this nonsense until the law is changed.” The Supreme Court has one job and one job only. Is the case before them Constitutional or not. They are not there to chime in with their opinion on trivial matters such as this. Idiots all.
How did this possibly make it through to the SC level? What bidniz of the Justices is it to decide whether a juice label is misleading?
If current law either zaps ‘em or let’s them go, so be it. And if there’s an outcry for stronger juice labeling, that can be handled legislatively.
Yeah, I get it that POM seems to think they have a claim against CC because of the label, but how could an appeals court not have handled this?
And it was originally sold as a headache remedy.
People pay more for plain bottled water...the same water that comes out of a tap elsewhere.
I bought coke syrup for my tummy. Helped with car sickness.
So, the court’s docket is too busy? They aren’t acting as a 9-member constitutional convention and parallel legislature? I’m sorry, but Robert’s weird opinion on Obama-care gives me little patience with the activist court, these days.
In writing his opinion in a surprise 5-4 vote with the liberals on the Court, Chief Justice Roberts wrote eloquently of how this was not a case of forced commerce which the Constitution strictly forbids but rather a case involving Tax law, which means you can legally require every American to forgo buying a far more superior product, real pomegranate juice and substitute it with an infinitely inferior product, pomegranate flavored juice and use the IRS to enforce the collection of not only revenues needed to support the pomegranate flavored juice but also enforce the purchase of the pomegranate flavored juice. The White House immediately issued a press release stating the President was confident that the matter was settled law and if you liked your pomegranate juice you could keep your pomegranate juice and if you liked your pomegranate provider you could keep your pomegranate provider. Period.
Stimulants work for migraines.
Just learned this:
Cocacola was doing the pomegranite thing 100 years ago with cocaine. Although they figured they needed some trace to keep the copyright, there was as little one grain of coca leaf per 400 bottles of coke.
The switch to caffeine managed to provide the same effect.
While rapidly spiraling to an eventual "crash", this nations top legal decision makers have time to fool with something as absurd as this? What about working on things that REALLY MATTER? There needs to be “term limits” on that "Brain Palace" as well.
Cases like this usually make it because there is too much “confusion” in the rulings in the lower courts. Thus, the decision here is SUPPOSED to provide some sort of foundation for decisions in similar cases moving forward.
Yeah...what about the fact there is not much “healthCARE” in Ocare???....or that there is little “Affordability” in the Affordable care act...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.