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

To: tutstar

As usual, WND is distorting the ruling and the meaining. The ruling can be found here:

http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/WIruling-Craig-Zinniker.pdf

This is a summary judgment ruling. It says the case goes to trial because there are TWO sides to the issue.

The ruling specifically says that someone who owns a cow and sells the milk can drink the milk directly from the cow if they wish, as can their family.

However, the state is arguing that the arrangement made is a sham, designed to allow the sale of raw milk to the public. The ruling does not agree with that description, but says it needs to go to court to see if it is true or not.


33 posted on 10/06/2011 5:58:30 AM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

How dare you confuse this eruption of outrage with actual facts!

I was going to post the same thing, but luckily I read all the posts and realize you were already doing so.

As you say, WND seems to do this a LOT.


48 posted on 10/06/2011 6:32:37 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

Actually the court DID say that the rights of the plaintiffs to own their cow, enter into a contract to board a cow, etc., all of which the plaintiffs claimed to be “fundamental” rights — the term “fundamental” being a key term — are not in fact fundamental rights.

Therefore, in determining the constitutionality of the laws of Wisconsin regulating milk production that the plaintiffs are challenging, the courts will apply a “minimal scrutiny” standard of review.

You could make very similar arguments the plaintiffs are making here about running a marijuana farm or coca field — or even a meth lab — that they have a fundamental right to “grow their own”.

This decision, at least up to the point where the Judge ruled on the question of fundamental rights, which is where I stopped, is NOT activist at all. It is pretty much “turn the crank” legal reasoning.


59 posted on 10/06/2011 7:23:42 AM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
Threads like this are why I tend to read ALL the posts before I respond.

This precaution saves me a lot of embarrassment. I have to work a little harder to sound stupid.

71 posted on 10/06/2011 8:02:12 AM PDT by jonascord (Politicians should be pelted with human manure, weekly, to remind them of their worth to society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

Thank you for the link. I’ll have to hold reading it until this evening, but I do appreciate the info.


87 posted on 10/06/2011 11:16:03 AM PDT by DemforBush (Serpentine, Shel! Serpentine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

Thank you for finding that. I’m always suspicious of paraphrases these days.


96 posted on 10/06/2011 3:06:41 PM PDT by Ellendra (God feeds the birds of the air, but he doesn't throw it in their nests.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

BFL. I need to read this ruling. The judge sounds like a lunatic.


108 posted on 10/07/2011 8:53:40 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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