9th CIRCUIT NUTJOB COURT REINSTATES SCHWARZENEGGER FOIE GRAS BAN

Aside from just being plain nutty, the California ban on Foie Gras is 100% unenforceable. So what’s the deal? Foie Gras is a French delicacy not a hate crime. Ducks and Geese specifically for food production are force fed a diet to make their livers grow larger. The life span of such birds is roughly eleven weeks. By comparison a Broiler Chicken’s lifespan is five weeks. This isn’t about longevity. This is a view that the practice of force feeding is cruel to animals. Some feel that killing and eating animals is cruel. The Crazy 9th Circuit decided the Schwarzenegger signed California law did not offend the Commerce clause or the reverse Commerce clause. 9th CIRCUIT NUTJOB COURT REINSTATES SCHWARZENEGGER FOIE GRAS BAN.

 

Trump family had Foie Gras breath for a week. $350 Billion weapons deal for a plate of Foie Gras… and well worth it!

 

Force feeding poultry is the issue:

The Court arguments were simply whether California could band a product in California as well as California production of a product if force feeding of an animal was involved. In other words, Foie Gras is not banned if the poultry is not force fed anything. Of course that is the definition of Foie Gras. California claims the ban basically bars all Foie Gras unless it isn’t actually Foie Gras. How cleaver. Not cleaver enough.

It is really very simple. No producer has to disclose methods of production especially a foreign company such as the largest North American producer in Quebec, Canada. The Federal Government is only concerned with ingredients not production methods. California would have to prove that the duck or goose livers on the plate were products of force feeding. That is impossible.

Producers in California would have a tougher time. These producers would be banned entirely from producing products from force fed poultry even those exclusively for export. States can ban products in the state. Virginia for example bans Radar Detectors for cars. They can do this as long as all parties in-state and out are treated identically so there is no trade advantage favoring in state producers.

 

Suppose a California producer made the ducks smoke pot and get the munchies?

That would be perfectly legal in California as long as the ducks were eating up a storm on their own volition and not force fed. Since the animals would be stoned most of the time, that would probably appeal to Californians. In California getting stoned is a good thing so it could never be viewed as animal cruelty. In fact in California there are plenty of people that would gladly trade places with the Stoned Ducks.

 

The Plaintiffs / Appellees  in this case argued that the Federal Government exclusively determines ingredients of poultry products preventing states from altering those ingredients.

If one were to say that Foie Gras is made of duck or Goose livers then California could prevail because the feeding method has nothing to do with the ingredients. If however the ingredient of Foie Gras were hypertrophied poultry livers that were produced by a force feeding process then Plaintiffs would win.

foie gras
ˌfwä ˈɡrä
noun
  1. the liver of a specially fattened goose or duck prepared as food.
    • short for pâté de foie gras.

The definition suggests that foie gras is the liver of specially fed poultry. What the Court is doing is attempting is separate the origin of the product from its production. Thus the Court is claiming that the ingredients of duck livers is the same as that of specially fattened duck livers. But if that were the case the word Foie Gras as a noun would have no distinct plain meaning. But if you were to talk to a Chef that was preparing a pâté and the ingredients called for Foie Gras, the Chef would not purchase duck livers. They would purchase the ingredient Foie Gras.

 

California dies by its own definition:

It would be impossible for California to stop Foie Gras pâté from entering the State. Why? California would have to prove the ducks were force fed. It is unenforceable.

 

California Courts are just trying to be cleaver. But the rule of the Courts has always been function over Form. So while the form of the ban is on the “force feeding” aspects of the product the product Foie Gras by definition is banned and that is the function of the the law to ban Foie Gras. Any normal Court would understand this. The US Supreme Court would reverse the 9th Circuit as usual.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a Constitutional embarrassment.

 

Related image

RINO Moron signs stuff Duck Law. I guess being force fed steroids left a bad tastes in Arnold’s bizarre dental occlusion. Tell me this guy doesn’t look like a lunatic!

 

Bottom line where does this liberal crap lead?

It essentially could lead to a total ban on Beef Cattle that were not raised as Family Pets or fed some specific kind of grass only grown at the North Pole. The state slime buck liberal politicians think if they can make something impossible by regulation they can regulate it out of existence. That is a form over function argument and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The net end result is the function of this idiotic Schwarzenegger law.  That’s why Schwarzenegger has a Scheiß eating Grin on his face. He thinks he’s pulling a fast on on everybody. He’s very Trump-like in this way. No wonder they hate each other.

 

“It is a good thing that California residents are perpetually stoned. Otherwise their apathetic heads would explode.”  

                                                                                             Cash McCall

 

Here is the Court Opinion if you care to read garbage like this…

It’s sort of the Dred Scott decision over food. The real issue is can you eat food without the Government of California banning it for some reason other than the fact that it is food eaten by people for hundreds of years. If this food were from a Native American tribe of some kind then it would be a hate crime to take it away from them. Look at the the Makah Tribe. Uh Oh! It is the only Native American tribe outside Alaska to hold whaling rights through a through a rip-off Treaty in 1855 in which the Donald Trump styled shyster WHITE MAN took 90% of their land and get this…. GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO HUNT WHALES. How do you say GRIFTER?!

Understand that this tribe had this right to hunt whale for over 3000 years until the idiots of California moved north to screw with them and take their land at gunpoint.  How bout California starts paying some reparations to these noble clam eating seal bopping savages? California fruitcakes walk over the Native American en route to their perfect PC world. I say let the Indians eat!

 

The Makah tribe makes a Whale of a Sandwich!

 

« Back home