Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Utah Supreme Court Ruling Bars Direct Sales of Teslas Through a Subsidiary (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the direct-sales dept.

The Utah Supreme court has ruled on Monday that the state's regulators could prohibit an auto manufacturer from having ownership interest in a dealer. "In what the court called 'a narrow, legal decision,' it said that it wouldn't weigh in on whether allowing the state's Tax Commission to prohibit direct sales from Tesla's wholly owned subsidiary was the best policy for residents of Utah," reports Ars Technica. "Instead, the court said its job was simply to determine whether the commission could legally make that prohibition." From the report: Tesla created its subsidiary, Tesla UT, to be able to sell new cars in Utah, but the State Tax Commission ruled that the subsidiary needed a franchise agreement. Tesla UT entered into a partnership with its parent company, but the commission said Tesla couldn't have a financial interest in Tesla UT's franchise. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, "Attempts were made in 2015 and 2016 to change Utah law to accommodate Tesla, but the car dealers and other automakers rebuffed the efforts." A Tesla spokesperson told Ars, "The Utah ruling is disappointing for Tesla and all Utah consumers interested in consumer choice, free markets, and sustainable energy. We will pursue all options to ensure that Tesla can operate in Utah without restriction. In the meantime, we will continue to provide service and limited sales activities (through our used car license) at our location in South Salt Lake City."

118 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Wheb you can't beat 'em by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Make them illegal.

    Thank God that the deep red state of Utah, is showing how the free market is supposed to operate.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      is showing how the free market is supposed to operate

      Well, the court decision in this case shows how a court should function: rule on the merits of the case and the letter of the law, not on what they think the legislature meant, or on how they would prefer to see things.

      That said, the law in this case is clearly anti-consumer, but that is a matter for the voters and their elected representatives.

    2. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by glitch! · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    3. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Whenever someone goes to court not only is the person on trial but so is the law. We've seen laws get struck down before in the courts. The court could have ruled the law a violation of a greater freedom, a violation of government limits of authority, or something similar. We've seen courts do legal gymnastics for "the greater good" before, why not in this case?

      Perhaps calling a ruling in Tesla's favor some sort of "gymnastics" is a bit over the top. I don't know the law in any detail except what was in the linked articles. It seems to me that this could be ruled either way depending on how one interprets the law. The letter of the law is sometimes not enough, we'll need some information on the intent to decide some unusual cases like this.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.

      That's not how courts work, and it's certainly not how they should work. Anything else is altering the laws with complete disregard for the process that they were created to begin with, and you may as well not even have judges and just let legislators both write laws and interpret them. Furthermore, you'd end up with highly inconsistent rulings and your legal system more or less would fail to serve any useful purpose.

      Not that I agree with this particular law.

    5. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      If you can't beat the filibuster, abolish the filibuster.

      I tried to present a bill, but couldn't get a word in edgeways.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the deep red state of Utah, is showing how the free market is supposed to operate.

      Government sucks everywhere — the less of it, the better. Free people ought to be able to sell stuff to each other at will. The list is long... Deep blue New Jersey, which first prohibited and then allowed sales of Tesla is not any better in this regard.

      It is not a right, if you need a permission (license, permit, approval) to exercise it.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Imrik · · Score: 5, Informative

      A court as a whole should seek justice, but a judge (or group of judges) should rule on the merits of the case and the letter of the law, not what they think the law should be.

      If the legislators write (or let lobbyists write) laws that are inadequate, it is on the legislature to fix them. At most, a judge might strike down such a law until it is fixed, but should not under any circumstances try fix it themselves.

    8. Re: Wheb you can't beat 'em by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Courts don't work that way. Laws regularly are either poorly written or have constitutional problems and that requires a judge to either fix the law or turf it out. If a law has ambiguity , a judge will need to work out how to resolve that ambiguity. If it clashes with other laws , a judge will need to decide which law is correct , if it requires a subjective standard , a judge will need to refit that abstraction into a practical test. And if it's unconstitutional , a judge needs to kick it to the curb. Despite what people say "black letter law" tends to be incompetent law

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    9. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by khallow · · Score: 1

      No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.

      Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.

    10. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.

      That's not how courts work, and it's certainly not how they should work. Anything else is altering the laws with complete disregard for the process that they were created to begin with, and you may as well not even have judges and just let legislators both write laws and interpret them. Furthermore, you'd end up with highly inconsistent rulings and your legal system more or less would fail to serve any useful purpose.

      Not that I agree with this particular law.

      And in the end it doesn't matter. Traditional dealerships can fight this all they want, but I'll own a Tesla some day, and if I have to fly to a place I need to buy one, then I'll do just that, and road trip it back home. So will others.

      My point in the whole thing is that people are so accepting of hypocrisy. the same people who complain about "activist judges", no doubt applaud this measure at the same time as beating their chests about the "free market" and capitalism as a religion seem to be remarkably reticent to competition that threatens their stasis and their god, money.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except it's how they've worked in the common law tradition for many centuries. Hate to break it to you but textualist ideology is mostly bullshit.

    12. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.

      That's not how courts work, and it's certainly not how they should work.

      Indeed, strict interpretation does not work, and should not be how they work. Only a few fools who don't want to argue principles of merit resort to it.

      Well, ok, there's more than a few of them. Still, they are fools, who expect us to knuckle under to their empty protestations and hypocritical moralization.

      Anything else is altering the laws with complete disregard for the process that they were created to begin with, and you may as well not even have judges and just let legislators both write laws and interpret them.

      You can't write what you don't understand, making your assertion here...confusing to say the least. But no, you don't have to have complete disregard to disregard something to some extent, as does happen with laws, which can be acceptable in part, but rejected in another part. I think you may be too inclined to hyperbole here.

      Furthermore, you'd end up with highly inconsistent rulings and your legal system more or less would fail to serve any useful purpose.

      That's what has happened when the adherents to "strict interpretation" take hold, and it has indeed caused the legal system to fail to serve any useful purpose.

      Take for example, the willful abnegation of purpose that preceded many controversial judicial decisions such as Brown v. Board, Baker v. Carr, Shelley v. Kraemer, or consider the absolute moronic nature of the decision in Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Hammer v. Dagenhart.

      Not that I agree with this particular law.

      But what do you agree with? Because I'm not sure what you're trying to advocate, you just seem to be wringing your hands at something.

      It seems to be a common malediction, a generic desperate plea over the courts acting in some way that is offensive, but yet it always seems directed in a willfully blind defense against actual malignancies of justice. I've yet to see an actually persuasive defense being made on the virtuous regard of such actions, instead it is just obstreperous claims of some offense.

      For example, Obergefeld v. Hodges, or Lawrence v. Texas. All denounced, yet absent any real morality brought forth in argument against them. Even Roe v. Wade barely rises to the occasion, far more often its moralizing defenders are often on the outs when they exercise silence against those who act with violence to exert their anti-abortion will, or even with regards to the death penalty, the misuse of deadly force, or any other cause where they could defend life.

    13. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Can't Elon Musk and some other Tesla shareholders

      1) Sell a bunch of Tesla shares

      2) Use so obtained money to start a new company called Tesla Dealerships, Inc.

      3) Have the new company open dealerships in all states which prohibit direct sales

      4) Make a franchise agreement or whatever it needs to be called between Tesla Motors and Tesla Dealerships, Inc.

      5) Run the operation so that it's essentially direct sales

      and thereby effectively circumvent these laws, while still respecting them?

    14. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time.

      We tried that. What was interesting is that the 10% of homicides were always white men accused of murdering black men. I forget why, but that became unpopular.

      The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific.

      Yes, the courts are a bureaucratic system designed to interpret the law and determine how it applies to certain cases. If the law isn't clear, or contradicts other law, then courts throw it out.

      You seem to think that the Justice System should always dispense justice - but it can't, because 'justice' is an opinion, not a fact. This judge would end up throwing all the dark-skinned people in prison, that judge will do the reverse. He'll send women to jail for driving while female, she'll never send a woman to prison. It would be absolute chaos, with with no way to tell if you 'really' broke a law, and no definitive way to change it.

      So we're better off with some bad laws, clearly spelled out and evenly enforced, even if it's not always fair. We can understand the legal consequences of our actions, and have an unambiguous path to change those laws.

    15. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not everyone does judicial review. And it seemed to me that glitch wasn't interested in judicial review or anything else that obstructed any justice the courts could mete out.

    16. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by khallow · · Score: 1

      How is that different from now? We have highly inconsistent ruling and a legal system more or less that fails to serve any useful purpose other than to serve the people who already have the money and power. I would prefer that the judicial system interpret the laws with this in mind, and not blindly suport the general philosophy that he who has the gold makes the rules.

      That's not the job of courts. That's the job of voters to police.

    17. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law.

      If judges decide what the law is, they why even have legislators and elections at all? You might want to read some history books before you conclude that giving all the power to a few old men is a better system than democracy.

    18. Re: Wheb you can't beat 'em by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Courts don't work that way. Laws regularly are either poorly written or have constitutional problems and that requires a judge to either fix the law or turf it out. If a law has ambiguity , a judge will need to work out how to resolve that ambiguity. If it clashes with other laws , a judge will need to decide which law is correct , if it requires a subjective standard , a judge will need to refit that abstraction into a practical test. And if it's unconstitutional , a judge needs to kick it to the curb. Despite what people say "black letter law" tends to be incompetent law

      There's interpretation and there's obstruction and circumvention. Clearly the point of dealership laws is to prevent direct sales to customers. Creating a subsidiary and granting a monopoly licence to yourself to sell to consumers is just pissing all over the intent of the law. There's lots of creative lawyers out there with absurd constructions and twisting of the law to create loopholes, for the most part a judge's job is to protect the spirit of the law and shut them down not encourage them. The only time I'd say a judge should really diverge from the law as written is if there's clear signs of a linguistic or logical failure in the wording of the bill. Unreasonable outcomes should be fixed by pardons and new bills, not redefined on a case by case basis by the judge.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    19. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some courts do work that way.
      In my country, the Netherlands, judges are supposed to rule on intent.
      In the US, judges are supposed to rule on the letter of the law.
      It may seem like a small distinction, but it affects how laws are written and is deeply ingrained in the large body of existing laws in both systems.
      Both these legal systems would crash to a halt if switching between intent and letter of law.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    20. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In the US, judges are supposed to rule on the letter of the law.

      The problem with this idea is that intent is always relevant in crime. That's why people go to trial and get sentenced based on their individual case.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re: Wheb you can't beat 'em by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's interpretation and there's obstruction and circumvention. Clearly the point of dealership laws is to prevent direct sales to customers.

      No. The point ("intent") of dealership laws is anticompetitive protectionism. The means of this protectionism is a law preventing direct sales to customers. The motive is profit, at the expense of The People.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I think "intent" also has the benefit of covering cases not explicitely stated in the laws. It helps prevent abuse of loopholes.
      The problem with "intent" is that it's not always 100% perfectly clear whether something is legal.

      The bigger problem specifically in this situation is that laws are written based on how they are to be interpreted; switching is impossible without rewriting the bulk of laws.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    23. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by jebrick · · Score: 2

      While I would oppose this law as written the Utah Supreme Court was correct. I am sure there is nothing in the Utah Constitution that makes this law wrong. The Legislators of most if not all States have made laws based on corporate interests. They do it for short term gain. This benefits the independent car dealerships, which I am sure have a strong lobby. The franchise protection laws are there to force independence from the companies. Cutting out the middle man for the States might not make cars cheaper to buy and that money would be heading out of state to the company.

      You want the law changed then take it up with your state legislators.

    24. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Are all judges elected in the US? Because if not, it's a problem if they can effectively rewrite law.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Not all republicans are libertarians and small-government types as far as the economy and laws.
      Some are social conservatives who have no problem with government inserting their paws into how you lead your life.
      Some are big government types as far as intervention in the economy (what's good for General Motors is good for the country).

      Just as not all Republicans agree on foreign wars - paleocons are isolationists (very much against foreign intervention); libertarians are also (obviously) against foreign intervention while neo-cons are famously pro-intervention (incidently the original neo-cons are former New Left, SDS types).

      So, when you say Red State you are talking about a state whose aggregate was a mixture of the libertarian, social con, Main Street, Wall Street (corporatist),
      Neocon is foreign affairs only. (A main street and Wall street type may or may not be in favor of a neo-con foreign policy), Paleocons are big interventionists in moral and economic matters at home and isolationist in foreign policy (think Patrick Buchanan).

      And finally - the market requires some structure. It's not anything goes. (Except for anarcho-capitalists) I'm a small-government libertarian (an extremist according to many) but I'm not an anarchist.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    26. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by ninthbit · · Score: 1

      You got this wrong... the court (judge) should adhere to the strict letter of the law. Legislators should just make sure they word things properly. It's the juries job through Jury Nullification to interpret the intent/justice of the law.

      When a jury shows a history of dismissing a case, it nullifies the law. This is how "common law" rulings are built. Future cases get lost because the lawyers show the case history

      “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” - Lincoln
      He isn't wrong.

    27. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Some are elected it just depends on the state. I know that all federal judges are not elected. I think all state supreme justices are not elected (although they could be). After that it is all over the place and it depends on the state.

    28. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Some people will do anything to keep a good man down. :(

    29. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      (on the other side of the coin) Maybe you should be looking at "those" who make the laws. And if their intentions are evil, greedy, or sinister.

    30. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I wasn't sure. I figured that the state could have elected supreme justices but I hadn't heard of any specific example.

    31. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Propping up the legacy big businesses appears to be one of the current guidelines for how the country is being governed at the moment. Certainly not an encouraging sign.

      I'm in the same boat as you are (well, car anyway). Our family's current plan is to get a Tesla when our current car no longer functions and needs to be replaced. We updated our garage already to handle the type of charger we're going to need because we're pretty certain we are going electric even if we don't get a Tesla. Any company that puts engineering first, even though they don't get it right every time, is something we should be in favor of. Technology always beats legislation, sooner or later.

    32. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I don't know about any particular state, but that's exactly how things are setup federally. SCOTUS regularly reinterprets laws (even the constitution periodically) because its assumed from step 0 that the legislature is made up of people who are going to fuck up periodically, either through malice or incompetence, and that having a system in place to double-check their work is a worthwhile thing.

    33. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Propping up the legacy big businesses appears to be one of the current guidelines for how the country is being governed at the moment. Certainly not an encouraging sign.

      The existing companies have teh money to purchase our politicians. The baksheesh is so ingrained, they don't even deny it now.

      Any company that puts engineering first, even though they don't get it right every time, is something we should be in favor of. Technology always beats legislation, sooner or later.

      Indeed. We are in the "Then they fight you" stage, which is the one right before "Then you win."

      My dream is a joint Tesla - Jeep collaboration to produce a trail rated EV. I would buy it tomorrow.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    34. Re: Wheb you can't beat 'em by khallow · · Score: 1
      The US doesn't have the only court system. According to Wikipedia, the UK and the Netherlands don't have judicial review.

      Some countries do not permit a review of the validity of primary legislation. In the United Kingdom, statutes cannot be set aside under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Another example is the Netherlands, where the constitution expressly forbids the courts to rule on the question of constitutionality of primary legislation.

    35. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed and upset that Jeep has no electric option. Electric cars have a torque wall - not a curve - and it's a high one too, with infinitely software adjustable delivery of that monumental power... which seems to be the ideal powerplant for a serious offroader. My Tesla has 760 horsepower and gets better mileage than any sports car I've ever owned, and seats seven. If Jeep had anything remotely similar I'd have one in the garage already, and the Tesla truck-looking thing is definitely not a Jeep. It's an untapped market that many enthusiasts don't know they really really want.

      I agree. Its odd, because Jeep isn't afraid to put other new technology in their vehicles. CVT's wicked ass traction control. It's not like they rely on huge old school engines. and 1960's tech. Let's hope soon.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    36. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Our state's judges are elected, and it is a problem that they can rewrite law. The entire state gets to vote on judicial races, meaning all of them share nearly identical views on political issues. These views are shared by a majority of the people, but only a slim majority, leaving a large minority unrepresented in these rewrites.

    37. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Anything else is altering the laws with complete disregard for the process that they were created to begin with,

      All laws are passed in a framework. The state laws are subserviant to state constitutions, and the US Constitution. The separation of powers indicates that the judicial system should evaluate the laws, and ignore "bad" laws. As should the executive. That's how the checks and balances work. Perhaps you should learn what that is, and move somewhere without it, since it seems to annoy you so much.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    38. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      It certainly is how they work. That's why we have a thing called "case law". If the courts work as you imagined, there would be no such thing as case law.

      No. Case law establishes an interpretation of a law as applied in a given circumstance.

      No. The useful purpose is called "Selective Enforcement" and it's one of the ways that TPTB remain TPTB and not TPTWereOnceButNowAren't.

      No. The judicial doesn't enforce any laws, let alone selectively so. Enforcement is strictly within the domain of the executive.

    39. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Yep. It was definitely racism, which is a thing only white people ever do.

      I was alluding to a particular kind of racist action during a particular period of one country's history. I realize you're too triggered to understand that, but when you stop hyperventilating please try again.

      As we all know, OJ Simpson was perfectly innocent and certainly didn't kill anybody ever.

      I would be shocked if OJ Simpson committed 10% of the homicides committed by black men that day, let alone over long enough time to draw conclusions about the broader societal effects.

      The guy just screamed "innocent". Black people certainly didn't celebrate when one of their own was found not guilty. It was evil white people tricking you into believing that. Darn those white people.

      You have issue that I am ill-equipped to deal with. Seek help, for good of yourself and those around you.

    40. Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      I think all state supreme justices are not elected

      The Michigan Supreme Court, for one, is made up of elected judges, except for interim appointments.

  2. Kudos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We can't have collusion between auto companies and dealers. The consumer would be totally shafted.

    Thanks for keeping businesses honest, Republicans.

    1. Re:Kudos by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      We can't have collusion between auto companies and dealers. The consumer would be totally shafted.

      Thanks for keeping businesses honest, Republicans.

      /SARCASM METER OFF.

      Just in case anyone didn't notice.

    2. Re:Kudos by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dealers add a minimum of 3% to the cost of every vehicle at a minimum. How it works is that the Dealer will generally take the wholesale price and add anywhere from 5-10% to the cost depending on popularity and supply. Then you can negotiate that percentage down to a minimum of 3%. Generally the 3% (called dealer holdback) is non-negotiable. Even if you buy 1000 cars a month they will NOT negotiate that extra 3%, they will cut the 10% down to that 3% but no matter what you are paying 3% more than you would if you could purchase it direct.

      Dealer laws do NOT protect competition, they protect dealer profits and insert a middleman into a sales that 50 years ago was needed but today is no longer needed at all. What's ironic about the Tesla decision and the law behind it is that Utah was one of the trial states for Ford when Ford experimented with buying out all the dealers and selling cars at fixed prices direct. So not even 10 years ago it was legal in Utah for the manufacturer to sell direct as long as their name was Ford and they paid the dealers a shit ton of money to buy out their franchises.

      Make no mistake, this law is about the Larry Miller family preventing this, they own the Jazz a ton of real estate and are some of the wealthiest people in the Utah and they have a vested interest (they control more than 50% of all the dealers) in preventing manufacturer direct sales. This is crony capitalism at it's highest level.

  3. Utah is not to be taken seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Utah shouldn't be taken seriously. If they could, I'm sure their Supreme Court would also make LDS the state religion.

    1. Re: Utah is not to be taken seriously by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      State cult. FTFY.

    2. Re:Utah is not to be taken seriously by rfengr · · Score: 1

      Only if LSD is the sacrament.

    3. Re: Utah is not to be taken seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was a typo in your comment. I think you meant "a local dealer will provide more campaign contributions than a distant manufacturer".

    4. Re:Utah is not to be taken seriously by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I would have assumed it was based on observed behavior.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  4. How much does a Utah legislator cost? by dltaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we know that maybe we could crowd-fund the purchase of enough to get any law we want passed.

    1. Re:How much does a Utah legislator cost? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      If we know that maybe we could crowd-fund the purchase of enough to get any law we want passed.

      You might really, really have something there. I mean it.

      The citizens of the US, united for a cause, could up-end the intrinsic corporate dominance that the Citizens United decision has resulted in since the ruling. Fuck them on their on petards, so to speak.

      ** Anyone is free to use this idea to found a Kickstarter-like company aimed t achieving this goal. I claim no ownership, nor credit. GO DO IT!

    2. Re:How much does a Utah legislator cost? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Depending on your legislation and industry, but federal lobbying is ~$3B/year, I'd guess Utah probably is in the few hundreds of millions of dollars, you're probably averaging a few thousand per legislator you want to buy the vote from per year.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:How much does a Utah legislator cost? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Federal lobbying is ~$100/citizen/year. Good luck on getting even 10% of the population to give $1000/year to their congress critters, if you can even agree on legislation to promote.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:How much does a Utah legislator cost? by littlewiggler · · Score: 5, Informative

      Utah is only ~65% LDS (Mormon), but holds more than 80% of the state legislature. Salt Lake City is close to 76% non LDS, but gerrymandering and just flat out population distributions make it so that outside of Salt Lake City and Park City any year with voter turn-out of more than 65% guarantees the Republican candidate wins.

      A typical Republican State House race, is around $7-$10k for actual 'needed' expenses in a race. Democratic candidates usually struggle to raise more than $4-$9k.

      State Senate is around $40k-$50k, but few Democratic candidates reach that amount.

      Most Utah House Republicans get between $20-$30k from 'fundraising' depending on their committee assignments. They usually have enough to fund their next re-election before they even start fundraising for the next cycle.

      Even if you are able to buy one, but there is the invisible guiding light from Temple Square about how and what bills will be brought to a vote and how they pass/fail. Add to the part-time nature of the legislature and lax conflict of interest laws there is also the inherent corruption for each elected representative to make sure the bills benefit themselves or their employers (both R's and D's)

      The big problem for Tesla is that the wealthiest family in Utah, the LH Miller family, owns most of the auto dealerships for all manufactures and are LDS. They also control most of the entertainment venues and professional sports teams.

      They lobby well and pretty much control what/how/when cars are sold. The Miller family shut down legislation proposing Sunday car sales a few years ago and have been successful in stopping legislation that would change the # of car dealers in a geographic area.

    5. Re:How much does a Utah legislator cost? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Similarly Israeli politics are dominated by orthodox Jews, who are a minority, but better organised, IMHO.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    6. Re:How much does a Utah legislator cost? by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Similarly Israeli politics are dominated by orthodox Jews, who are a minority, but better organised, IMHO.

      Same story in the UK with UKIP, the PVV in Holland and in France with the FN. They are fairly small but they have a disproportionately large effect because they are loud and well organised. UKIP does not even have a parliamentary representation worth mentioning but they still managed to eject the UK from the EU.

    7. Re:How much does a Utah legislator cost? by swb · · Score: 1

      I had kind of the same epiphany reading this.

      What if all the complaining about money in politics is actually working against liberal ideas instead of for them? It kind of sounds like preaching for chastity to prevent pregnancy.

      What if legislative seats really were auctioned off to the highest bidder? Could ordinary people pool their resources in collectives to buy seats? Maybe national, issue-oriented groups would buy some, regional ones would be some, etc.

      Maybe rather than whining about money in politics we need to actually just embrace it.

    8. Re:How much does a Utah legislator cost? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hmm. You mention UKIP but not the SNP, who had only two thirds of the votes yet over fifty times as many elected MPs?

      Incidentally, UKIP effectively forced the referendum on Europe but didn't win it. If anything Farage probably lost the Leave campaign more votes than he won it.

      The EU lost the referendum, along with David Cameron. A particular highlight was when he went to the EU and asked for fuck all, and they didn't even give him that. Kind of threw into perspective just how little the EU cared for the British people, as if years of contempt and derision hadn't already done that.

  5. Dealers are Leeches by number17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here are the benefits of a dealer network as provided by the National Automobile Dealers Association:

    1) Better pricing when there are lots of dealers in your location. Bad pricing when there few. 2) Manufactures gain free distribution channel that they would otherwise have to pay for themselves.

    All I see is a non-efficient layer that extracts profits by jacking up prices.

    1. Re:Dealers are Leeches by fred911 · · Score: 1

      #3 manufactures get funded directly upon delivery to the dealers and have the ability to force them to carry unwanted / overpriced product.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Dealers are Leeches by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Is Tesla actually prohibiting resellers? Or is it that nobody wants to be a reseller when Tesla sells directly.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    3. Re:Dealers are Leeches by crow · · Score: 1

      Tesla doesn't sell cars at wholesale prices, so any reseller would have to buy them at retail and mark them up from there. Also, I think it would be tracked as a sale, so technically they would be buying new cars and selling them used; I'm not sure about that.

      In any case, Tesla isn't making deals with dealers, so if you want to open an independent Tesla dealership, your best bet is to sell used Teslas, which you can buy at various car auctions like any used car. If I weren't stuck in a satisfying well-paying job, I've thought I might want to start an electric-only used car business.

    4. Re:Dealers are Leeches by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Competition is good -- between auto manufacturers.

      Adding an unnecessary layer between the purchaser and the seller is bad. This "competition" you refer to (between various dealers) is simply a competition of who gets to rip you off, and for how little they can rip you off for and still make a living skimming from your purchases. Dealers are a leach pure and simple. And they sell you unnecessary things like magical undercoatings and add to the cost of your vehicle. If that was needed, the manufacturer would have done it.

      Auto dealers have a place in hell is that only one level above advertisers.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:Dealers are Leeches by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Competition is bad, I tell you. Only the manufacturers should have the right to sell the product.

      So is your argument that everyone should have the right to extract a profit by being a middleman, regardless of your business model?

  6. Re:Why bother in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You spelled Mormons wrong, it's not spelled morons.

  7. I guess next in line is are the Apple stores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Utah will now have to make Apple stores independent with no financial ties to Apple.

  8. Devil's Advocate? by WhatsGoodman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone actually believe, or at least legitimately understand the position, that auto manufacturers should not be able to sell directly to consumers? I'm genuinely curious. There are many cases of seemingly anti-consumer regulation where I can at least comprehend the logic of the other side (net neutrality being the first that comes to mind), but in this case I don't see anyone benefiting from this regulation other than entrenched dealership groups.

    1. Re:Devil's Advocate? by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The amusing thing is that it was originally intended to prevent exactly this type of abuse. What happened that (apparently) nobody honest was able to both foresee and prevent was that the manufacturers would find a way to gain implicit control over what the dealerships do and say anyway.

    2. Re:Devil's Advocate? by jittles · · Score: 1

      Does anyone actually believe, or at least legitimately understand the position, that auto manufacturers should not be able to sell directly to consumers? I'm genuinely curious. There are many cases of seemingly anti-consumer regulation where I can at least comprehend the logic of the other side (net neutrality being the first that comes to mind), but in this case I don't see anyone benefiting from this regulation other than entrenched dealership groups.

      It's a historical thing that has to do with the start of the auto industry. Initially, the auto manufacturers did not have the capital to create dealerships in every market they wanted to sell in. So individuals took on the risk and started them up. Once the auto dealers became big enough, they wanted to control the entire market and displace the dealerships. Obviously those individuals did not like assuming all the initial risk and then being strong armed into selling to the manufacturer, or being completely cut off from supply. I think the legislature went too far by excluding them from owning their own sales fronts, but should have been more concerned with ensuring that the dealerships could not sell the cars to themselves lower than they sold the cars to the dealerships. There may have been a maintenance factor involved as in - why pay a 3rd party to fix your car when you can have it fixed by the manufacturer directly? I am not sure.

    3. Re:Devil's Advocate? by utahjazz · · Score: 2

      Read this article: http://www.autonews.com/articl...

      TL;DR "Why is Tesla *SO* special they need an exemption from the law!?!?" Kinda hard to read without getting angry.

      Long ago, the argument was that car companies come and go, but dealerships are forever. So you buy a car from a dealership you will always have a place to service it even if the car company goes out of business. That argument sounds pretty silly nowadays. So now they go with "This is how it is, no exemptions for Tesla".

    4. Re:Devil's Advocate? by rhazz · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the limitation was so manufacturers wouldn't compete with existing dealerships by expanding into that market and undercutting them. This is different - a company that has no intention of using the dealership model, and there are no existing dealerships to protect. However if all new car companies cut out the middleman, the dealership model will eventually fail and entrenched interests with deep pockets don't like that.

  9. Inter-state Commerce by Luthair · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not an American, but couldn't this be considered interstate commerce which would be federally regulated?

    1. Re:Inter-state Commerce by Mr.CRC · · Score: 5, Funny

      Certainly not. The criteria for what constitutes "interstate commerce" are strict and narrow, and the federal .gov usually errs on the side of caution rather than venturing into uncertain legal territory. ;-)

    2. Re:Inter-state Commerce by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Certainly not. If what you grow in your own garden for your own consumption is Interstate Commerce, then..... Oh wait, I think that I have got this wrong.

      "Interstate Commerce" is a phrase that is defined by Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to meanâ"neither more nor less."

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Inter-state Commerce by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm not an American, but couldn't this be considered interstate commerce which would be federally regulated?

      Most likely the federal government could make a law on the subject if they wanted to, and that law would override any state regulations it conflicted with, but since the federal government hasn't done anything on the topic, the states are free to regulate as they wish.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Inter-state Commerce by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Interstate commerce is only preempted by federal law when there is a specific federal law. And the Utah laws are not violations of interstate commerce if they apply equally to in-state and out-of-state businesses.

  10. That's always a conflict between two laws by raymorris · · Score: 1

    A law is struck down when it's overridden by a higher law. When two laws conflict, a court must decide which one controls. Mostly you hear about it in the popular press when a state or federal statute conflicts with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It can also be a state law overriding a city ordinance, or a federal law overriding a state one.

    An appointed judge can't, and shouldn't, write the law themselves because they don't like the law written by the elected legislature. What a judge does in these cases is take note, and rule, that some higher law overrides a lower one.

  11. Fyi these laws by democrats 1940s-1960s by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Fyi these laws were passed mostly by Democrats, in the 1940s through 1960s. The pitch to the public was against the big bad auto companies, GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Of course there were plenty of campaign contributions from auto dealers, who didn't want to be cut out of the action. Still today auto dealers are significant players in state and local politics.

    1. Re:Fyi these laws by democrats 1940s-1960s by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Fyi these laws were passed mostly by Democrats, in the 1940s through 1960s.

      So before the Southern Realignment, then?

      The Republicans who control Utah had the opportunity to change this law, but those same people who espouse "free markets" want to impose a particular market structure on the sale of automobiles.

      They are hypocrites and the voters in Utah need to recognize this.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  12. What if... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    What if there is no dealer in the area ? How the hell are you supposed to buy a particular brand if there is no dealer in the area. This isn't for the consumer benefit, but to preserve the manufacturer monopoly via exclusive dealership arrangements. I should be able to buy a car at Sam's/Walmart just like I buy any other product.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:What if... by AtomicSymphonic · · Score: 1

      The idea on the part of the Car Dealer Associations is to "starve" Tesla of potential sales and eventually force them to the bargaining table with the auto dealers and start franchising their brand.

      What I'm seeing so far is Tesla losing the war. There's too much entrenchment of the auto sales industry for any real change to take place, much like Uber and Lyft attempted to change the Taxi industry.

      Tesla wants to portray themselves as the "Apple Inc." of the automotive industry, and they're certainly making a big effort on that, but at this point, no one should keep their hopes up of letting car manufacturers selling their cars directly to consumers, especially with a conservative government installed for likely the next decade.

      (Plus, I actually *like* the idea of being able to bargain for a car for way less than MSRP. I can't do that with Tesla, so I don't buy their cars...)

    2. Re:What if... by Geeky · · Score: 1

      (Plus, I actually *like* the idea of being able to bargain for a car for way less than MSRP. I can't do that with Tesla, so I don't buy their cars...)

      I hate that aspect of it. I hate the fact that someone with better bargaining skills than me could get exactly the same product for less money. Sadly, here in the UK, dealers are the norm. There is a direct sales showroom for one manufacturer fairly close to me, but they only sell for MSRP - and even I could get 10% off that at a dealer.

      I wonder if I could argue that haggling on price discriminates against the less socially capable..!?

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    3. Re:What if... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I should be able to buy a car at Sam's/Walmart just like I buy any other product.

      Well, that's a good idea. So far the closest thing is that Costco has auto buying services (unlike Sam's or Walmart) and they have arrangements with dealers to provide a fixed set of packages at a low negotiated price. The packages are admittedly whatever the automaker or dealer is trying to sell, but that's how big box stores work anyway. You can't have it how you want it. You can buy what they have on the shelf or not. Except that Costco will actually also work with buyers to get whatever car they want. They handle locating the vehicle and brokering the deal, and you just go pick it up, or do the paperwork remotely and have it delivered.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:What if... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ooh, I like it. "Give me a 30% discount or I'll sue you for discrimination"?

      Would need to know how big a discount the good hagglers get though first :(

  13. I've seen this before... by Xciton · · Score: 1

    "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

  14. Re:The court did not "bar" anything - title is wro by Imrik · · Score: 1

    The court's ruling supports the commission's right to bar direct sales. Perhaps saying that the ruling bars direct sales is not completely correct but it is the effective result of the ruling.

  15. Big bad auto companies are corporations by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > I don't see anyone benefiting from this regulation other than entrenched dealership

    Car dealers bought these laws, mostly in the 1940s through 1960s. The excuse to the public was basically "car manufacturers are large corporations, and therefore bad". It doesn't make a lot of sense, but few voters cared enough to think about it, and to be quite frank, you generally *need* a good argument to get Democrat voters to accept a law against the big o' corporation versus the "little guy" car dealer. Even though the "little guys" have tens of millions of dollars EACH. (These laws were mostly passed by Democrat legislatures).

    1. Re:Big bad auto companies are corporations by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      And with the Trump presidency, the Republicans have shifted back to the left of the Democrats.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  16. Those are called lobbies. Six years Citizens Unite by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Anyone is free to use this idea to found a Kickstarter-like company aimed t achieving this goal. I claim no ownership, nor credit. GO DO IT!

    Great idea! I think our group's first issue should be that laws should respect our Constitutional freedoms. Maybe the most clear-cut example, so a good one to start with, is the second amendment. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear, and the people who wrote those words also wrote quite a bit about what those words mean, so it's pretty clear. "Bear arms" is what they had just done defeating the British army. They did so as militias, about which they wrote "the militia is the whole people". So there is a good place for us to start.

    Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think we should start by passing laws that pretend the Constitution doesn't exist, or that Washington bureaucrats should "interpret" the Constitution to mean the opposite of what it says. We can start TWO Kickstarter projects. We'll call the pro-Constitution one the "National Rifle Association" and the anti-Constitution one "Americans for Responsible Solutions".

    What you "take no credit for inventing" are called lobbies. The EFF is a lobby, they employ people called lobbyists. PETA and MADD are lobbies. They advocate for ("buy politicians for") the issues their members care about.

    > could up-end the intrinsic corporate dominance that the Citizens United decision has resulted in since the ruling

    Can you tell me what difference you saw, exactly, between 2002 and 2008? McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002, effective for the 2004 elections, and struck down in 2008 by the Citizens United ruling, which said that you ARE free to donate to the EFF, the ACLU, or other group of your choice in order to make your voice heard on political issues. In other words, rather than just standing on a street corner yelling, you can cooperate with other citizens to make a film expressing your political opinion. That was true from the founding of the country until 2002, so what great improvement did you see from 2002-2008 when groups like EFF and ACLU couldn't legally advocate during the peak of the election season?

    I know, I know, if you get your news from certain comedians, you've heard the joke about "corporations are people". Yes, a corporation can be sued in court, a corporation can be regulated by law, etc. If Ford sells you a dangerous car, you might want to sue someone. Rather than finding which employee made the bad weld, you can sue the corporation, the corporation is a legal person. That's actually the definition of a corporation - a cooperative group treated as a legal person, so they can be sued, regulated, etc.

    That concept was created by the ancient Romans. When an aqueduct needed to be built, rather than seperately hiring a thousand stone masons, the Roman Senate contacted with a group of stone masons, called corporation, to build the aqueduct. Citizen's United didn't create the corporation as a legal person, Cicero did, and Pope Innocent IV popularized it outside of Rome. SCOTUS simply noticed it, once again (for upteenth time).

  17. Tesla store to open up in Wendover, NV by AlanBDee · · Score: 2

    Wendover is about a 2 hour drive from Salt Lake City. Many of the Casio's supply a "fun bus" that ferry people from UT to enjoy all the other things that are illegal, too. I'm just sad that UT will, once again, miss out on taxes that they should be getting.

    1. Re:Tesla store to open up in Wendover, NV by will_die · · Score: 1

      Considering that Tesla is for the upper 1%ers they are not going to be taking a bus to get a car.
      Also if you think UT will be missing out on taxes you have never owned a car. Taxes on car are collected when you register a car, so they will be collecting all taxes.

    2. Re:Tesla store to open up in Wendover, NV by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It's more like the upper 5%. I don't think you realize how wealthy the 1% is. Top 5% would be around $225k/year, but 1% is double that.
      Silicon Valley engineering managers and senior staff can afford a Teslas. A dentist that runs her own office can if she has good and regular business. An oral surgeon, can regardless if she's running the office.

      You're aiming at the wrong target if you think your dentist is part of this 1% problem.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Tesla store to open up in Wendover, NV by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      The Tesla III is not designed for the wealthy. I know many people who will take these fun buses because then they can drink without having to worry about driving. It's not like public transportation.

      In UT we pay a state sales tax when purchasing any vehicle. The state will miss out on that tax if the car is purchased in NV. I would buy one except I don't buy new vehicles, Unless they prove to hold their value. When I do buy a used one then I will have to pay sales tax if it's purchased in UT.

      I also want to point out that a huge part of the "1%" are hard working people who save their whole lives. It's more like the 0.01% that are a problem. http://www.motherjones.com/kev...

    4. Re:Tesla store to open up in Wendover, NV by will_die · · Score: 1

      Utah, like most states, still requires that you pay the sales tax when you go to register it in Utah. At that time it will be called a use tax but it uses all the regular tax rates.

  18. Re: When you can't beat 'em by khallow · · Score: 1

    Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?

    Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.

  19. Re: When you can't beat 'em by khallow · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, you did not answer my question

    No. I think I was quite fortunate. I will not answer your loaded question (loaded because it falsely implies that I did not "demand justice" from courts) because it isn't worth answering due both to the obvious of the answer and to the irrelevance to what anyone else has posted here.

  20. They are indeed politicians by raymorris · · Score: 1

    They are indeed politicians, funded by those who benefit from this law. As the summary mentions, it looked like there was a chance the law would be changed, but it wasn't because the citizens don't care strongly enough about this issue. It's not going to change any significant number of votes.

      Technically, they aren't *hypocrites*, they know it's bad law. A hypocrite would *say* they believe free markets work better than rule by bureaucrat, but not actually believe that. I'm sure these lawmakers believe what they say on that point. They also know who their donors are.

  21. What is the intent, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When you say the law is there to prevent direct sales to customers, but making a subsidiary makes a mockery of it, what is the intent of preventing direct sales to customers? And should that be the law?

    Because the intent of disallowing direct sales is meaningless without you saying.

    And then please explain franchises in the light of that intent, given that they're precisely the same damn thing, but just for other services.

  22. Re:If it's just the plain word of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Might want to see the movie, "Colossus: The Forbin Project" But then, you're another goddamned idiot like the one wanting the Courts to legislate from the bench.

    There's a reason why they framed in the government the way they did. It's to prevent goddamn idiots like yourself from damaging things.

    Rule by fiat is what we had when King George ruled all. You and everyone like you want either rule by fiat from a single or a small group of individuals.

    Non-jury trial, folks. For a reason. Appeals. Moreover, if you want it changed, take it up with your legislators and the Governor. Don't like what they're doing? Replace their ass. It's not the role of the Courts, nor should it be, to handle this situation, but you clever fucks think you know it all.

    You're part of why it's all in a mess...and you're fucking stupid.

  23. Re:The government won't save us! by Pikoro · · Score: 1

    You do realize that all auto manufacturers in the USA receive the same subsidies, that's why they all have some sort of EV program.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  24. Re:The government won't save us! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    We are going to see CAGW averted

    I hope you're right, but so far things are getting worse and not better, and your optimism is unfounded.

    not because of government but in spite of it.

    That's not how it works. Automakers would throw away efficiency standards if they didn't have to meet them somewhere. It doesn't matter if Trump relaxes or eliminates CAFE because the rest of the world (even China!) is still demanding stricter emissions controls... not to mention California, and the other states which follow our lead. You might get some extra-sloppy versions of vehicles for the US market, but they're not going to stop making efficient versions of the same vehicles for sale in other countries. So it is very much not in spite of "it", because there is not just one government as you seem to imagine.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Democracy??? by johnnys · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quote: "Attempts were made in 2015 and 2016 to change Utah law to accommodate Tesla, but the car dealers and other automakers rebuffed the efforts."

    I know Utah is weird, but the "car dealers" and "automakers" have a veto over state government and the media reports this as though it's somehow normal? What part of "democracy" do Americans not understand?

    --
    Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
    1. Re:Democracy??? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      It's normal in nearly every state in the Union. Local car dealers are some of the wealthiest and most well connected people in most urban areas and state governments. They have one of the most powerful local lobbying groups in the country at the state and local level, NADA.

      This is why you see constant stories about Tesla being told they can't sell cars. NADA and it's members don't want Tesla selling cars direct. They want to force them to the table and open dealer franchises and this is getting more and more urgent for NADA as Tesla sells more vehicles every year. Initially they weren't too worried about them and opposed them on principle, but Tesla sold 50K cars over the last 6 months and is approaching the sales level of major luxury brands like Mercedes. This has scared NADA and they are spending significant sums at the local level to try to shut Tesla down thinking this will drive them to the table but Tesla will just do what they have been doing, they will have a "store" where you can't buy anything but you can test drive and they will direct you to the internet to purchase. The local state governments can't prevent this sales avenue and are operating like it's still 1950 and they only way to buy a car is local.

  26. Re:The court did not "bar" anything - title is wro by mi · · Score: 1

    Perhaps saying that the ruling bars direct sales is not completely correct

    The "not completely correct" is a spin on incorrect. Which was my point.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  27. Re:Why bother in the first place? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Yes, there is a significant difference. One is a subset of the other. Morons come in more flavors.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  28. Re: When you can't beat 'em by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    why have courts if you do not demand justice from them?

    Because you are missing the point that justice is blind. "Demand justice" for who? in what case? for what law? What is the just process for changing a law? The people will be forced to follow the law and they vote for the legislature that write the laws.

    You do not have justice if a judge has an agenda before seeing the facts of the case. Nor do you have justice if a judge does the job of the peoples representatives.

    Is it not just to allow the elected legislature write the laws the people want? If so, then it is also just that any judge must not be an activist judge by changing the law to fit their definition of "justice" because you are not being just to the people and the legislature they elected for the intent of writing the law.

    Justice cannot be blind if you are willing to have judges rewrite the laws to their prejudices.

  29. How the hell is this legal? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Try telling Apple that they can't open an Apple Store. Or Tiffany. Or Nike.

  30. Re:EQUAL PROTECTION by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    As far as I know the big three always go through franchised dealerships, not counting fleet vehicles. Just about every town has a dealership, which is privately owned as a local business, and has an agreement with one or more car manufacturers to receive shipments with some strings attached. The big advantage to this is dealers don't have to pony up the invoice price up front, limiting the amount of capital these small businesses have tied up in inventory.

    I think the system is probably due for an overhaul. You'll find most of the state governments are not going to risk putting thousands of small dealerships out of business. Tesla's problem is they have been selling cars to individuals at the equivalent of the dealer's price. If they switched to the franchise model they would have to increase their retail price, which is unlikely, or reduce their revenue per unit. Having potentially negative profits per unit will probably tank Tesla's stocks and make investors unhappy.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  31. When members of the legislature.. by drewsup · · Score: 1

    go to an Apple store, do they have the same hesitations to buy from a manufacturer??

  32. Re:Why bother in the first place? by Cederic · · Score: 1

    All the mormons I know are really nice people. Some are very intelligent.

    They've just been brainwashed as children and lack the ability to step away from it. I pity them. But aside from that, they're not morons.

    Then again I don't know any members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints that's actually from Utah. Lovely countryside, shame about the religion.

  33. Re:Those are called lobbies. Six years Citizens Un by Altrag · · Score: 1

    I love how these rants always jump straight into the second amendment when the first has been under fire for so long that its barely recognizable and the fourth and fifth are under heavy fire daily right now and the 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th are quite subject to interpretation of words like "excessive" and "speedy." I notice not too many people bemoan the loss of the 18th either.

    The 2nd is probably the least-diminished of the "well-known" amendments (admittedly in large part due to the tireless lobbying of the NRA. Sure you have to jump through a few hoops in some jurisdictions but for the most part you can get your guns without too much trouble as long as you don't have a record.) So why is it always the jumping off (and frequently only) point for red rants about the erosion of the constitution?

    Free speech? Privacy? Who needs that shit when we can all just go out and shoot things!

  34. Hardly by SpiceWare · · Score: 1

    A year ago the average price for a new car was $33,666. The Model 3 is not be for the one percenters. http://mediaroom.kbb.com/new-c...

  35. Re: When you can't beat 'em by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?

    Courts and judges are part of the legal system.

    There IS NO 'justice system'.

    It does not exist and never did except as a set of moral goals and standards in the hearts of men. "Justice" is moral and relative, changing with individual circumstance and the opinion of the observer, and therefor can never be codified into law.

    In order to achieve the closest thing to "justice" within the limitations of men, the law must be interpreted as written in all cases, because courts and judges are determiners of legalities, not warriors for someone's opinion on what is "just".

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  36. An obviously polarized issue with well-known lobby by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The point in my post was about opposing sides, represented to by opposing lobbyists. The post I replied to suggested "we the people" should be a lobby, hiring lobbyists. My point is that we do - thing is, since "we the people disagree", we are opposing lobbies, we hire opposing lobbyists.

    I don't think people argue too much about excessive bail or speedy trial, so those would be very bad examples.

  37. Re: When you can't beat 'em by khallow · · Score: 1

    Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.

    that you will have to face up to your own loaded question, of a character that could be considered irrelevant, in particular to glitch!'s remarks.

    Words have meaning. Loaded question doesn't mean "I'm butthurt because someone on the internets disagrees with me." Instead it means

    A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

    What is being assumed in my question:

    Why have the other branches then?

    Obviously, there is the assumption that there are more than one branch in some sort of democratic government context which is justified given glitch! explicitly mentioned two branches of government, legislative and courts. And there's the implication that this somehow neuters the legislature (which was the key point of my observation and a clear problem with glitch!'s post which several people noted).

    And that's it. It's not a big question so there's not a lot of assumptions hidden in it.

    As to "could be considered irrelevant", I suggest you don't do that. A court which can reinterpret legislation without regard for the writing or intent has the power to craft their own law. What is the point of a legislature which can be overridden and bypassed at will by the courts?

    glitch! said courts should be able to do these things without regard for the abuses of power that this leads to. That's why courts usually don't have that power in the first place.

  38. Re:The court did not "bar" anything - title is wro by Imrik · · Score: 1

    Very few titles or even summaries are correct under that criteria, even articles would frequently be incorrect if that's the way you judge.

  39. Re: When you can't beat 'em by khallow · · Score: 1

    Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.

    It wasn't part of the question so no, I disagree. That post was just two sentences with a very important point you continue to ignore. It's amazing how you keep digging this hole deeper.

    You're assuming an abuse of power from the courts, while glitch! was remarking on the abuses of the legislature

    Of course! You should too. Just because other branches have their own opportunities for abuse doesn't mean that we should escalate by creating a very abusable power for the courts as well.

    To use a car analogy, if some part of your control system: steering wheel, accelerator, brakes, etc is too responsible, you don't fix it by making another part too responsive as well. Two broken components don't counter each other.

  40. Re: When you can't beat 'em by khallow · · Score: 2
    It's remarkable how this keeps going on and on. If only you would think instead of running your mouth.

    I'll summarize my position for any readers still here. glitch! wrote:

    No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.

    Sorry, right there, glitch! has said that courts should ignore "the letter of the law". Well, that's what law is. By definition it is something written down or otherwise recorded. Once you ignore the letter of the law, you ignore the law. At that point, he has elevated the power of the courts above the legislature completely. The legislature merely writes law. If the courts can then change the law, there is no serious role for the legislature, particularly as a counter to the courts.

    In response, I asked the obvious:

    Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.

    Now we go to your ridiculous and dishonest loaded question.

    Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?

    My reply:

    Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.

    I do the important thing that one does when answering a loaded question. I point out the flawed assumption and why it is flawed. Here, I do not support an unjust court and I pointed out how checks on the power of courts further the cause of justice. Thus, the question in addition to its other unsavory characteristics is irrelevant to my point.

    That's because you got hoisted on your own petard.

    Once again, your question was not worth answering, but you had to forge on with an annoying and erroneous tu quoque fallacy. You have yet to show why my question was supposedly loaded. It would have at least given me an opportunity to explain the error in your reasoning, should you have tried. But this is the best you mustered:

    Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.

    You are asserting that because glitch! stated a duty of the courts to look for Justice, due to the failings of one branch (as explicitly stated, the legislature), a presumption on glitch!'s position as it were, that the others will be eliminated in favor of the courts.

    There's nothing to rebut there since that wasn't even a coherent statement much less a controversial or unjustified assumption of the question I asked. Oh well.

    That's when the verbal diarrhea started. You can insist with multiple paragraphs all sorts of false things, but those remain false. Similarly, writing more about dumb ideas and claims doesn't make those any smarter.

    Sorry, your characterization of the situation is falsely premised, as you are asserting two broken components, rather than what is the actual situation, which is having one force to counter another force. See above, where I point out your misapprehension. There is a reason why brakes do exist, and some vehicles even have steering control mechanisms to prevent slides and wipe-outs. So actually, even your analogy is flawed, since it is not quite as true as you think.

    You're not even wrong here. You're not talking about my point at all. It doesn't matter if there are automated systems involved. My point is