I just bet Paul Deignan a bottle of w(h)ine that last week’s “compromise” capitulation will backfire. If the Dems do not filibuster a single judicial candidate between now and January 20, 2009, or if the first filibuster is met with the same “nuclear” response the Republicans should have brought last week, Paul wins a bottle of Merlot, of a label of his choice, price not to exceed $20.00. Otherwise, I win a bottle of a type of my choice, subject to the same price constraints. Basically, I win either way.
I’m open to suggestions. Depending on whether you expect me to win or lose the bet, I’d like to know (1) what good wines, if any, are available in Indiana, or (2) the best way to ship wine.
UPDATE: Never mind, the bet’s off. First, by Paul’s own admission, there is no wine in Indiana, so it would be impossible for me to collect on the bet if I won. Second, shipping wine to Indiana is illegal, and a felony to boot.
What, you say? Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court just rule that you have a God-given, constitutional right to ship wine anywhere you want, right up there with your First Amendment right to express political viewpoints within 60 days of an election, your Second Amendment right to bear arms, your Fourteenth Amendment right not to be deprived of the privileges and immunities of citizenship or your Eighth Amendment right not to be fined excessively? Um, no, they didn’t. All they said was that states cannot discriminate against out of state vintners by prohibiting direct shipments by out of state vintners while allowing direct shipments from those in-state. Then again, you already knew that.
Indiana’s law, H.B. 1212, applies by its terms to in-state and out-of-state vintners alike. Thus, it is not affected by the recent Supreme Court ruling on wine shipments. Lazy MSM reporting may have fooled many Indiana residents, but it hasn’t fooled the ones who count.