Supreme Court strips away our right to expensive raisins

[dismal]

High court strikes down raisin program as unconstitutional
WASHINGTON (AP) —

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-st...gram-unconstitutional-142418972--finance.html

Now our streets will be flooded with cheap raisins, which are a well known gateway fruit.

Damn activist judges foiling the work of the Raisin Administrative Committee.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

Roberts rejected the government's argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling different crops if they don't like it.

"'Let them sell wine' is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history," Roberts said. "Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated."

Right-wing hypocrisy meter just exploded.

So umm... aren't there a lot of these laws out there? Does this throw our entire agricultural system into flux? Though, the article says only a few crops are covered by legislation like this, and it really isn't active.

And why is the bill unconstitutional? It sounds more like they were not fairly compensated (by the W Administration). The law deals with Due Process. In '03 and '04 doesn't sound like Due Process was upheld.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I really don't think that the government should be spending money to artificially influence the raisin market. If prices get too low, then that means that some raisin farms need to either go out of business or switch to a different crop.

Now, if some enterprising farmer could figure out a way to weaponize raisins, then that would be a different matter.

 

[jonatha]

Now, if some enterprising farmer could figure out a way to weaponize raisins, then that would be a different matter.

I take it Canada doesn't have fruitcake...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Now, if some enterprising farmer could figure out a way to weaponize raisins, then that would be a different matter.

I take it Canada doesn't have fruitcake...

No, we don't. This is because we're a decent country which obeys the Geneva Conventions. We don't go around manufacturing things such as biological weapons and fruitcake.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I take it Canada doesn't have fruitcake...

No, we don't. This is because we're a decent country which obeys the Geneva Conventions. We don't go around manufacturing things such as biological weapons and fruitcake.

I thought fruitcakes were what the first hockey pucks were made of.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, we don't. This is because we're a decent country which obeys the Geneva Conventions. We don't go around manufacturing things such as biological weapons and fruitcake.

I thought fruitcakes were what the first hockey pucks were made of.

And where are the people who played the first hockey game right now? All dead. Every single one of them. That's where they are.

I rest my case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought fruitcakes were what the first hockey pucks were made of.

And where are the people who played the first hockey game right now? All dead. Every single one of them. That's where they are.

I rest my case.

Probably still on the ice floats they were sent off in Hudson Bay after they died, so we may be able to resurrect them if global warming didn't thaw them out yet.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Raisins are an abomination and an affront to God.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Raisins are an abomination and an affront to God.

I always viewed them with suspicion. They're kinda like Grape Zombies. Or at least, Grape Undead. Dried, wrinkled, blackened... All the juicy grapeness removed through the application of the unholy arts.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Raisins are an abomination and an affront to God.

Then why does he give people 72 of them as a prize if they're nice enough to blow up some innocent bystanders for him?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Raisins are an abomination and an affront to God.

Then why does he give people 72 of them as a prize if they're nice enough to blow up some innocent bystanders for him?

What a crap religion. At least make it watermelon. Something of size.

 

[dismal]

link

Roberts rejected the government's argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling different crops if they don't like it.

"'Let them sell wine' is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history," Roberts said. "Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated."

Right-wing hypocrisy meter just exploded.

So umm... aren't there a lot of these laws out there? Does this throw our entire agricultural system into flux? Though, the article says only a few crops are covered by legislation like this, and it really isn't active.

And why is the bill unconstitutional? It sounds more like they were not fairly compensated (by the W Administration). The law deals with Due Process. In '03 and '04 doesn't sound like Due Process was upheld.

The Constitution has a specific provision that prohibits the taking of property without compensation, the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The good news for big Raisin Administration it was only an 8-1 ruling. There is one justice that thinks taking 40% of someone's crop and giving them nothing in return is not a taking without compensation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

link
Right-wing hypocrisy meter just exploded.

So umm... aren't there a lot of these laws out there? Does this throw our entire agricultural system into flux? Though, the article says only a few crops are covered by legislation like this, and it really isn't active.

And why is the bill unconstitutional? It sounds more like they were not fairly compensated (by the W Administration). The law deals with Due Process. In '03 and '04 doesn't sound like Due Process was upheld.

The Constitution has a specific provision that prohibits the taking of property without compensation, the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The good news for big Raisin Administration it was only an 8-1 ruling. There is one justice that thinks taking 40% of someone's crop and giving them nothing in return is not a taking without compensation.

Well, the key word is just compensation. She simply thought that raisins weren't worth shit all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks like dismal can't read as he so robustly makes a case that seems quite congruent with what I said. The issue isn't that the law doesn't offer due process, rather the W Administration didn't pay out.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is one justice that thinks taking 40% of someone's crop and giving them nothing in return is not a taking without compensation.

The crops are not really "taken without compensation"? The compensation is merely indirect. The whole point of such programs in to drive up prices and increase per unit profit margins. They also often use the $ raised by selling the "surplus" to schools for marketing campaigns to increase demand for the product overall. This is why most farmers seem to support these programs and why the big corporate farms with lots of lawyers have done litte to stop them.

Also note that the reason this one farmer brought the suit is that the government fined him for trying to skirt the rules by directly selling their own raisins to the end-consumer. It sounds like they created a shell retail company and gave their own company those surplus raisins for "free", which means they technically did not "sell" them and thus thought that was a loophole. They benefited from the higher market value created by all other farmers holding back supply, but then tried to sell all their own supply at that higher price. Only after getting fined for this, did the bring the suit to stop the whole program altogether.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Raisins are an abomination and an affront to God.

Then why does he give people 72 of them as a prize if they're nice enough to blow up some innocent bystanders for him?

Because if he sends them to hell, then the souls of the righteous won't get to enjoy watching their torment.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Then why does he give people 72 of them as a prize if they're nice enough to blow up some innocent bystanders for him?

Because if he sends them to hell, then the souls of the righteous won't get to enjoy watching their torment.

Why not? Just have a giant earthquake level Silicon Valley and then have all the new tech guys set up Heaven with decent wi-fi connections, so everyone can stream video from Hell.

 

[dismal]

Looks like dismal can't read as he so robustly makes a case that seems quite congruent with what I said. The issue isn't that the law doesn't offer due process, rather the W Administration didn't pay out.

The big difference in our posts was I managed to cite the actual constitution, highlight the relevant part, and all while not babbling on about right wingers and Bush.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Looks like dismal can't read as he so robustly makes a case that seems quite congruent with what I said. The issue isn't that the law doesn't offer due process, rather the W Administration didn't pay out.

The big difference in our posts was I managed to cite the actual constitution, highlight the relevant part, and all while not babbling on about right wingers and Bush.

Good for you.