Posted on 06/22/2015 8:58:52 AM PDT by aimhigh
The Supreme Court has undercut a long-running raisin supply management program, ruling Monday that the federal government must pay for raisins kept out of the marketplace.
In a marked victory for Fresno County grower Marvin Horne and other dissident California raisin producers, the divided court said the program that compels some raisins to be held back in a reserve is subject to the just compensation commands of the Fifth Amendment.
Raisin handlers set aside 47 percent of their crop during the 2002-03 season and 30 percent for 2003-04, but they were paid for only part of what they surrendered.
(Excerpt) Read more at sanluisobispo.com ...
The issue was cut and dried. (Or at least dried.)
Thanks....That should be an interesting read of a convoluted pretzel....
Government immorally creating shortages to drive up the price was institutionalized by FDR.My mother remembers pigs being shot and the carcasses buried on the farm in the 1930s-while people were going hungry in the U.S.
There has to be a special place in Hell for those who deliberately ruin food.
Fresno ping
So 8-1?
Any count for the farmers is good
“Sotomeyer dissented”
Yeah, it figures, because the “wise latrina” was probably a grape picker in her earlier years and hates farmers as a consequence.
Exactly.
To waste something like this is criminal.
“Supreme Court rules on side of dissident California raisin growers”
I see that we have yet another genius ‘journalist’.
Raisin grower, Mr. Doyle? They are dried grapes, dumb-ox!
You are spot on, my Daddy and Uncles talked about milk cows being shot in the same way.
To the extent that the Committee is not taking the raisins for public use, having the Court of Appeals calculate just compensation in this case would be a fruitless exercise.Methinks he submitted a concurring opinion just to use the pun.
Kind of like Canada and their Maple Syrup plan.
What I want are my California almonds back again !
Communists and Socialist ALWAYS ruin the food system.
I read Sotomeyer’s dissent.
She basically observes that numerous related cases upheld “takings” by observing that the owner was not _completely_ deprived of property or use thereof. Her reasoning is that there isn’t a bright line differentiating this one from the others, so the only conclusion is all-or-nothing: since not all the raisins were taken (about 50%) and the actual land was not otherwise commandeered for use depriving the owners from benefitting from it (hey, they even got paid for a lot of the confiscated raisins), then it matches assorted other upheld takings; if we’re going to strike this one down, then we have to state & explain where the dividing line is, which the Court didn’t do.
I disagree with her conclusion, but can respect how she got to it (insofar it’s taking other rulings to their logical conclusions, and thus painting the Court into a corner).
My spaghetti tree is doing great!
Good.
Maybe it is simply because she is an idiot.
Obviously thought it was a racist attack on these guys.
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.