Gorsuch wrote that the law would impose costs on farmers but that it ‘serve[d] moral and health interests of some (disputable) magnitude for in-state residents.’ These considerations were, supposedly, ‘incommensurable’, and should thus be left up to the voters.
Interestingly, he does not specify whether he means human or non-human in-state residents. Almost surely he meant the first. The magnitude of the interests involved becomes indisputably overwhelming if we factor in the latter. However, the rationale for respecting the judgement of the voters is correspondingly weakened, since the majority of those affected are disenfranchised.
I’m slightly confused with that justification by Gorsuch. Prop 8 already put forth a production ban in California, so the health interests of Californians should already be served. Prop 12 affected the health of residents in other states.
I agree that this was clearly not about serving the interests of non-human animals, and therefore doesn’t really serve as precedent for granting animals moral rights or weightage independent of voters caring about them.
The respondents argued that one of the functions of Proposition 12 was to protect the health of California customers w/r/t foodborne illness, which might be more likely from intensive farming systems where diseases spread easier.
So essentially claiming that pork products would be safer under Prop 12, since most of the pork sold in CA wasn’t impacted by Prop 2.
Gorsuch wrote that the law would impose costs on farmers but that it ‘serve[d] moral and health interests of some (disputable) magnitude for in-state residents.’ These considerations were, supposedly, ‘incommensurable’, and should thus be left up to the voters.
Interestingly, he does not specify whether he means human or non-human in-state residents. Almost surely he meant the first. The magnitude of the interests involved becomes indisputably overwhelming if we factor in the latter. However, the rationale for respecting the judgement of the voters is correspondingly weakened, since the majority of those affected are disenfranchised.
I’m slightly confused with that justification by Gorsuch. Prop 8 already put forth a production ban in California, so the health interests of Californians should already be served. Prop 12 affected the health of residents in other states.
I agree that this was clearly not about serving the interests of non-human animals, and therefore doesn’t really serve as precedent for granting animals moral rights or weightage independent of voters caring about them.
The respondents argued that one of the functions of Proposition 12 was to protect the health of California customers w/r/t foodborne illness, which might be more likely from intensive farming systems where diseases spread easier.
So essentially claiming that pork products would be safer under Prop 12, since most of the pork sold in CA wasn’t impacted by Prop 2.