Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court says program that takes raisins from farmers is unconstitutional
AP ^ | June 22, 2015 — 9:30am | AP

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agriculture; communism; confiscation; economics; eminentdomainabuse; govttheft; pricecontrols; property; propertyrights; raisins; scotus; scotusraisins; theft; usda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
To: martinidon

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?


21 posted on 06/22/2015 8:00:02 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: citizen

Well you know, the farmers didn’t actually grow those crops. The government did. (/S)


22 posted on 06/22/2015 8:00:18 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

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.


23 posted on 06/22/2015 8:01:57 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MrB

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.


24 posted on 06/22/2015 8:10:48 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Hillary..... Bwahahahahahahahaha....Thud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Yes. They were against it before they were for it.


25 posted on 06/22/2015 8:13:04 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

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.


26 posted on 06/22/2015 8:20:32 AM PDT by citizen (WalkeRubio RIGHT For You 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: citizen

Sour grapes?


27 posted on 06/22/2015 8:20:49 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Ah, yes, the Pocahontas Rule: “You didn’t build that by yourself.”
(Elizabeth Warren)


28 posted on 06/22/2015 8:22:36 AM PDT by citizen (WalkeRubio RIGHT For You 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

29 posted on 06/22/2015 8:22:54 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martinidon

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.


30 posted on 06/22/2015 8:23:47 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Is this a “Rasinist” decision?


31 posted on 06/22/2015 8:24:51 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

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.


32 posted on 06/22/2015 8:29:29 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: citizen

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.


33 posted on 06/22/2015 8:30:09 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Good! Maybe this can be a precedent for other “takings” that the government carries out all the time!


34 posted on 06/22/2015 8:30:30 AM PDT by MeganC (You can ignore reality, but reality won't ignore you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Actually, taking it away and using my money to pay for it is wrong, too.


35 posted on 06/22/2015 8:37:35 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
It would be kind of interesting, though a huge waste of time, to read Sotomayor’s dissent.

Does it have anything to do with grudges about migrant grape harvesters?

36 posted on 06/22/2015 8:44:56 AM PDT by Albion Wilde ("We've seen this before. There's a master race. Now there's a master faith." Benjamin Netanyahu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; martinidon

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.


37 posted on 06/22/2015 8:45:54 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Obamacare penalties “identify as” a tax when it suits them, and they “identify as” a penalty when being a tax causes problems.

Are we talking about white raisins or black raisins here?

38 posted on 06/22/2015 8:48:31 AM PDT by Albion Wilde ("We've seen this before. There's a master race. Now there's a master faith." Benjamin Netanyahu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

“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.


39 posted on 06/22/2015 8:49:02 AM PDT by ThomasMore (Islam is the Whore of Babylon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Whatever the raisins want to identify as, you racist!
(raisinist?)


40 posted on 06/22/2015 8:53:14 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson