I'm not much of a lawyer type and am writing the diary in hopes that some other lawyer types will weigh in with their opinions of the Supreme Court decision on wine sales. They decided interstate wine commerce was federally okay.
In short, we had a strange 5-4 breakdown of the nine justices today. Scalia was in the majority, and Thomas and Rehnquist were in the minority.
Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, and Ginsburg were in the majority. O'Connor and Stevens were in the minority.
Interesting points of note:
I think the decision to allow interstate wine sales was based partly on common sense - "things have changed", etc. Which seems sort of ironic given Scalia's view that the Constitution is not a living document.
Meanwhile, Stevens (we usually like Stevens!) based his dissent on the fact that the 21st Amendment was in direct odds with the majority's decision. And in his closing, he writes:
As Justice Thomas has demonstrated, the text of the Twenty-first Amendment is a far more reliable guide to its meaning than the unwritten rules that the majority enforces today. I therefore join his persuasive and comprehensive dissenting opinion.
Also, note that since Scalia was the senior justice in the majority opinion, he assigned the writing of the opinion, which is what I believe would be his only added "power" would be if he were to become Chief Justice.
Corrections appreciated for everything I got wrong!