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 ...
Any reparations to the generations of farmers that were victims to this governmental theft?
It would be kind of interesting, though a huge waste of time,
to read Sotomayor’s dissent.
The short story is that the USDA has been taking raisins from every grower in the country for the past 70 years. They do not pay for them. The USDA then gives or sells these raisins to schools, and to foreign governments. Any proceeds is kept by the USDA to promote raisins around the world. The USDA claims they have to do this to support the price of raisins.
Of course this was blatantly unconstitutional and that an appeals court actually thought it was OK for the government to go onto private farms, break into barns and haul off 25%-40% of the crops is scary.
Good decision, I wonder if the vote was close (5-4) or one sided (9-0)?
I was wondering which justices thought it was OK to steal people’s stuff.
This will have the effect of killing a lot of USDA “marketing orders” - the government does this in quite a few areas, cherries, almonds, avocados, grapes. Quite a few monopolistic entities have sprung up around this in cranberry and other consumer food products.
Well, we know which ones think it’s OK for the government to require possession of what the gov’t owns anyway, which, in their opinion, would be everything.
But what gets “interesting” is that they argue from this point of view without admitting this point of view.
Good.
I’ve always thought that the government taking raisins away from farmers was theft.
I mean, what else could it be?
Wow...some great news to start the week.
8-1 with the wise Latino dissenting.
5-4. Although the other three Libs issues squishy decisions that agree with the majority in part.
I wonder how long before SCOTUS renders decisions in favor of government confiscations?
If Hillary becomes POTUS she’ll have the power to “appoint” the next one or more SCOTUS judges...anyone she appoints, will be, like her, in favor of big government, not the people.
And, the GOPe will go along with her appointments.
Over time, that should bring down food prices for at least those crops.
I find it amazing that this law has not been challenged until now. I can not understand how anyone ( other than a communist liberal) could think this is right.
It was 5-4. Another squeaker.
That’s a razor thin margin. One more judicial appointment - most likely by the next POTUS - and the court will swing the other way - 5-4 in favor of Big Government, not the people.
THAT’s what’s scary... government confiscations ruled “constitutional.”
8-1
Yeah, this slide away from a government of, by and for the people and into a government for the government has been accelerating lately. That whole “you didn’t build that” campaign was especially galling. And now the government argues in the most dishonest Machiavellian way. When they argued Obamacare it wasn’t a tax, then it became a tax. And so on. Government is of course just a reflection of the politicians and bureaucrats. We elect duplicitous, jealous, petty, small minded and selfish people so that is how our government behaves. Sorry for the rant.
The article says 8-1 is there something I am missing?
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.