You'll recall that, in September, we wrote about the disparity that exists in e-commerce taxation. In summary, e-commerce players have been able to avoid state taxation because of a lack of "physical presence." As we pointed out, Amazon ($AMZN) benefitted from this for years - at least until it decided that it wanted to conquer the "last mile." Did this help spark the #retailapocalypse? You betcha. But South Dakotans - all 3 of them - don't like to be effed with and so they're back in South Dakota v. Wayfair for a second bite at the apple in the Supreme Court. You legal bro-dorks may want to dust off your Commerce Clause know-how. This hyperbolic piece describes what's at stake, arguing that the SC's previous Quill decision ought to be fixed to accommodate technology and disruption. The briefers write, "Four negative effects of the physical presence requirement merit emphasis. First, the physical presence rule poses a much more serious threat to the fiscal stability of state and local governments than the Quill Court could have anticipated. Second, the rule results in economically inefficient consumption choices to an extent that the Quill Court could not have foreseen. Third, the physical presence rule distorts firms’ decisions about production, distribution, and corporate structure in ways that perversely discourage businesses from expanding across state lines. Fourth and finally, the physical presence rule likely raises the aggregate cost to consumers and businesses of complying with state sales and use tax laws." No wonder Overstock ($OSTK), which is also implicated, is shifting from e-commerce to bitcoin.