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 ...
“I’d suggest that the Court’s definition of takings could use a broad extension.”
Agreed.
Unreal. It is clear that people who spend their lives in government (and that includes education, since government basically funds all of that, too) have no clue about business or economics. Apparently Mrs. S doesn’t know that “income” is not profit, not salary. They don’t get to keep it. They use their income to pay all their expenses such as land tax, water tax, water bills, salary for the migrant workers, payroll tax, disability insurance, workers comp insurance, mortgage, maintenance of farm equipment, packaging for raisins, freight, liability insurance, gas oil electric and a lot more. When the government grabs 30% off the top every year, those fixed expenses don’t drop commensurately. Indeed they expect the farmer to pay all that out of pocket with 30% less income. And Mrs. S doesn’t also realize that their income is already limited by the laws of nature. They can only plant and harvest X amount on Y area of land. That’s it. Its not like they can “grow” their way back to greater income. It’s incredible the arrogance of the political class and how they work all day every day to find new ways to tell other people how to live their lives.
[ to read Sotomayor’s dissent. ]
Excerpt: Vee are Zee Guvermints and Vee can Tell you vat vee vant you to doo!
“Maybe this can be a precedent for other “takings”...”
Right, like income tax....
Regarding whether there was a taking, the vote was 8-1 that there was a taking. Justice Sonia "The Wise Latina" Sotomayor was the sole dissenter, believing the raisins were voluntarily given as a condition of being allowed to sell them in interstate commerce.
Regarding just compensation, the vote was 5-3-1 in favor of the fair market value of the raisins the Department of Agriculture attempted to steal (and then fined the grower the FMV after failing). Three would remand this part of the case so the trial judge or a jury could deduct from the compensation the supposed benefit the grower received from the program. Sotomayor would have given no compensation on the ground that there was no taking.
There will be money damages, and they will be huge, I think.
8-1 with Sotomayor dissenting. Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion.
The Commie Bitch has obviously never owned a business.
Yea! But this has been going on since the 30’s. Are there any plans to pay back the farmers who sacrificed their crops?
Isn’t this dissing “saint” FDR and his ‘raw deal’ programs?/s
“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.”
Regulations.
“Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay “just compensation” when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away.”
Oh great, Roberts just created a new subsidy. I guess
he thought he was getting rid of a bad law.
“Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only dissenter. She said the program did not deprive the Hornes of all their property rights; it just limited the amount of potential income they could earn from it.”
HaaHaaaaa(Billroy)haaaaaaaaa. “of all their property rights”
PfffhoohahahahHaaaaaaa
“it just limited the amount of potential income they could earn from it.”
This woman is an idiot. Naa it won’t violate all of your
body if I just cut your arms off. She is way too incompetent
for .......anything. Even assistant crack whore.
“Wickard v. Filburn is still good law...”
It’s horrid law and should be overturned immediately.
L
SCOTUS recently doubled down on the principle, with Raich.
Funny fact pattern in Wickard v. Filburn that goes unnoticed. Farmer Filburn could have grown all the wheat he wanted to, and fed it to his livestock - if he not threshed the grain, it would not trigger the "excess production" regulation. This fact (about threshing) is in the SCOTUS opinion, and completely undercuts their justification for holding as they do. In other words, SCOTUS cut its own nuts, logically speaking.
That’s what I thought, and tat would be HUGE! A partial repudiation of the evil new deal!
That.
Specifically, she screwed-up the law. The Not-So Wise Latina confused regulatory takings from a standard taking. A regulatory taking occurs when the government causes the property to be worthless (e.g., declaring a person land to "wetlands"). A standard taking (sometimes called "eminent domain") is when the government takes physical possession of the property. A standard taking can occur even if there is still some economic benefit to the former property owner. Sotomayor kept confusing these two, claiming that there was no standard taking because (in her opinion) there still would have been some economic benefit to the citizen from the raisins that would have been confiscated.
Fortunately, the other Justices were wiser than the Wise Latina.
does not hardly make up for it
They’ll just turn it into a tax.
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.