Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jonty30

Jonty30, it doesn’t surprise me either. If government has the right to tell people what to eat, it also has the right to tell them what NOT to eat. Justice Kagan would no doubt uphold this ruling in an appeal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea5Zgrn5hsI

Watch it and weep for our country.


31 posted on 10/06/2011 5:55:46 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Aspire to be good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: CitizenUSA

This case is NOT about what a person has the right to eat, but what a person has the right to sell. Please don’t read WND & think you are getting an honest report.

This is a summary judgment. That means the facts in the case are in dispute, and must therefor go to trial. The plaintiffs argue they are not selling raw milk. The state says they are, and have denied them a business license. The facts are in dispute, so it needs to go to trial.

That is all this ruling says.


39 posted on 10/06/2011 6:13:07 AM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson