FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/22/2015 7:46:00 AM PDT by monkeyshine
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says a program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
The justice said Monday that forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of private property.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
The same way they could think that “closed shop” is right.
Raisin growers are forcibly “unionized” (forced into co-op) and the co-op board has the right to seize dues (raisins) and it is okay because the growers “benefit” from the higher wages (raisin prices) brought about by union negotiation (increased scarcity and raisin promotion).
It is evil, but what would you expect from a FDR program?
Well you know, the farmers didn’t actually grow those crops. The government did. (/S)
I just had a revelation.
Obamacare penalties “identify as” a tax when it suits them,
and they “identify as” a penalty when being a tax causes problems.
So now local government will write law which someone will destroy the raisin farmer. And by the time they get to appeal it, their crops will be gone, their homes taken and their shouts unheard.
See “Delta Smelt” for more details.
Yes. They were against it before they were for it.
Where are you guys seeing 5-4?? It was a 8-1.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of private property.
Sour grapes?
Ah, yes, the Pocahontas Rule: “You didn’t build that by yourself.”
(Elizabeth Warren)
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The opinion was delivered in three parts. The vote was 5-4 for that opinion. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan agreed with Parts I and II, but disagreed with Part III (8-1). Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing apparently that the government can do whatever the hell they want, whenever they want.
Is this a “Rasinist” decision?
As I understand it, the farmer who brought suit tried a few different things to avoid the theft. The USDA literally came to the farms and took the raisins - each year a different amount, depending on the total crop. This farmer refused. Fortunately the USDA doesn’t own any tanks and did not burn down his compound. But they did fine him something like $700,000 for the value of the raisins. Which in itself is totally ironic. They wanted to take $700,000 worth of raisins in order to help him out financially. We are truly in a Orwellian age.
Anway so what this farmer did was pack the raisins himself for retail. He did not wholesale them, so there were none for the USDA to take. But they still laid claim to his share of the crops. Like that guy who owns a convenience store who made a lot of cash deposits and the IRS claimed he was “structuring” cash banking to avoid the $10,000 limit. They seized $175,000 of his cash. He also won, after years of fighting. The IRS has to give the money back but they won’t pay his legal bills nor will they give him interest. Which has they won, they would have charged him.
I got 5-4 here:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-california-raisins-20150622-story.html
“Chief Justice John Roberts spoke for a 5-4 majority. Several of the liberal justices agreed in theory but stopped short of saying Horne was due money for part of his raisin crop.”
Sorry if I got it wrong.
Good! Maybe this can be a precedent for other “takings” that the government carries out all the time!
Actually, taking it away and using my money to pay for it is wrong, too.
Does it have anything to do with grudges about migrant grape harvesters?
One of the 5-4 parts was about whether SCOTUS should even rule on it. 4 justices wantd to send the case back to the appeals court to reconsider their previous decision, instead of overturning it. IANAL but I don’t really see the point in that. This is a binary choice, either the government can steal your stuff or it can’t. And of course it shouldn’t. That this is even a question shows how far we have fallen. Though I can see why some of the justices would not want the court to rule on this case because then it becomes final and will be argued in other cases across the land. So those justices who voted to send the case back rather than overturn it clearly harbor some degree of totalitarian tendencies where they think the government can grab your stuff ‘for the common good’. Though this is so cut and dry, I am really surprised it wasn’t 9-0. Well not really surprised but you know what I mean. I will have to read Sotormayer’s dissent... what the H is she thinking? Sheesh.
Are we talking about white raisins or black raisins here?
“Quite a few monopolistic entities have sprung up around this in cranberry and other consumer food products.”
Yes, and many congressmen have had palms greased as well.
Time to end regulations that have created “corporatism” and killed creative and energetic competition in a true “capitalistic” society.
Whatever the raisins want to identify as, you racist!
(raisinist?)
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.