Posted on 06/22/2015 7:19:28 AM PDT by oblomov
Horne v. Department of Agriculture.decision is a big win for those of us who try to make a living in Ag
Any net proceeds the raisin growers receive from the sale of the reserve raisins goes to the amount of compensation they have received for that taking. It does not mean that the raisins have not been appropriated for government use, nor can the government make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition for selling in interstate commerce.
This is a major blow to government's program of trying to boost prices by keeping crops off the market.
It is 5-4 as to at least some parts. Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan partly concur, partly dissent. Sotomayor dissents in full.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Okay, how does this affect peanuts, corn, soy beans, etc?.........................
In short, for a “reserve” program in which the government requires crops not be put on the market, the reserve is to be treated as a taking and the farmer is entitled to just compensation.
Horne was brought by a family of raisin farmers, who object to being required to participate in a government program that obligated them to set aside a portion of their crop and not sell it on the market, to keep crop prices up. The basic question before the Court was whether, in its efforts to manage supply and demand to raise the prices of raisins the government was “taking” the farmers’ property from them, triggering a constitutional duty to pay compensation.
Eight Justices today (everybody except Justice Sotomayor) held that the answer is “yes.” - See more at:
http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__June_22_2015#sthash.bfkwtgdL.dpuf
That is, until Executive Order 13603 gets invoked by the White Hut...
No opinion on ACA today
No it is a win for big raisin!/s
who decides what is ‘just compensation’?........................
Is Sotomayor applying LAW or POLITICS to the formation of her decisions? If the latter, is that breaking the terms (oath) of service? Or then again, is she just ignorant of the law?
In the case of a widely marketed crop, it would be easy to determine. It’s simply the market price.
Horne could massively upend a variety of price-support programs that happen to be organized by requiring growers to give up part of their crop. It seems like an esoteric opinion about raisins that is pro-farmer; the result could be very much pro-consumer (and anti-farmer) if the government is right that the programs actually benefit growers (an argument the majority refused to entertain). - See more at:
http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__June_22_2015#sthash.bfkwtgdL.dpuf
Sotomayor’s decisions on cases takes into account several factors, such as which side of the bed she woke up on, and how much flatulence she passed while in conference.
This much bigger than raisins - it includes all agricultural products and could mean lover grocery prices at the store! It could include dairy and meat also! It all depends ...
Praying for this trend to grow with the other big SCOTUS decisions this week ...
she can’t be ignurant of the law. she is a wise latino. says so herself.
The bureaucrats are REALLY going to go after raisin farmers with a vengeance now.
Yes. My grandfather’s small farming enterprise got shut down in Mississippi. My mom told me that’s when he started drinking.
True, it seemingly applies to any crop that the government restricts from the market, which has the effect of increasing prices.
However I’m guessing that the government just increases subsidies by paying the additional amount required for a taking. Because while low prices are good for consumers, they’re generally bad for suppliers and result in reduced revenue. Which will put some farmers out of business.
So in reality while we may see a decrease in prices at the grocery store, those lower prices will be counteracted through either higher taxes or additional deficit spending.
But the ‘market price’ is determined by how much of the crop is on the market. If the government buys the crop and then pays the farmer what the market price is, then they have to do something with the crop they bought. Sell it and depress the prices or destroy it and raise the prices?..........................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.