FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
Excellent. Pretty much a repudiation of Wickard v Filburn.
Under FDR, the government (w/ SCOTUS approval) stole a man’s wheat under the pretext that he was grinding his own grain into flour for his own use, thus affecting interstate commerce in flour. Can anyone with a real knowledge of the history of the raisin board tell me if that was an outgrowth of the wheat/flour policy? Or was it derived from the same bastardized thinking that currently pays farmers to not grow certain crops and not produce too much milk, because the government wants to control prices rather than let the free market decide?
Background:
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act_of_1933
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Marketing_Agreement_Act_of_1937
National Raisin Reserve of 1949
In 1949, Marketing Order 989 was passed which created the reserve and the Raisin Administrative Committee, which is responsible for running the reserve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Raisin_Reserve
In addition to the National Raisin Reserve, during the New Deal other reserves existed for almonds, walnuts, tart cherries and other products. Enacted during the Great Depression, the New Deal reserves were a result of the government’s attempt to keep prices viable for farmers to grow the fruit and make a suitable profit. Most of these no longer exist.
Marketing orders and agreements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_orders_and_agreements
Marketing orders are binding on all handlers of the commodity within the geographic area of regulation once it is approved by a required number of producers (usually two-thirds). An order may limit the quantity of goods marketed, or establish the grade, size, maturity, quality, or prices of the goods. The Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) uses marketing orders to regulate the sale of dairy products and fruits and vegetables. An order can be terminated when a majority of all producers favor its termination or when the USDA determines that the order no longer serves its intended purpose. Marketing agreements may contain more diversified provisions, but are enforceable only against those handlers who enter into the agreement.
Raisin farmers? Must be like those spaghetti farmers.
Wickard v. Filburn is still good law, and in that case a payment to the government for production in excess of allotment was upheld.
I read through the transcript of the oral arguments when this was heard. The opinion ought to be really interesting.
Now that it is determined to be unconstitutional, is it too much to ask to defund the Dept of Raisins or whatever this foolish government bureaucracy is called?