Supreme Court says program that takes raisins from farmers is unconstitutional

AP ^ | June 22, 2015 — 9:30am | AP

[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.

[beelzepug]

“Must be like those spaghetti farmers.”

An easy mistake. I’m pretty sure that’s the dental floss ranch.

[GeronL]

SCOTUS got one right.... wow

[knittnmom]

Really? The Supremes actually know what’s in the constitution? Wouldn’t have known it by some of their previous rulings.

[GeronL]

being forced into a cooperative sounds like a contradiction in terms

[GeronL]

“good law” is still bad

[GeronL]

exactly

[Cboldt]

Yeah, I meant "good law" in the legal/technical sense, in that a court can still cite it as binding, and the appellate courts will agree.

Wickard didn't come up at all in this case. The raisin law challenge before SCOTUS was purely on the legal definition of a "taking."

If more money had been at stake (the total value here is pretty small, the number of farmers affected is also pretty small), the case would have gone the other way. Sotomayer's dissent shows the way. It isn't "out in left field" moonbattery.

[Paladin2]

This Government Scheme (stealing raisins) by the DoA (also of Bundy Ranch Fame) sounds much like this one:

"The general scheme of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as related to wheat is to control the volume moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages and the consequent abnormally low or high wheat prices and obstructions to commerce. [n5] Within prescribed limits and by prescribed standards, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to ascertain and proclaim each year a national acreage allotment for the next crop of wheat, which is then apportioned to the states and their counties, and is eventually broken up into allotments for individual farms. [n6] Loans and payments to wheat farmers are authorized in stated circumstances. [n7] "

Maybe there is hope to overturn Wickard v. Filburn

[Uncle Miltie]

Between Clinton and Bush, which will nominate a conservative justice?

[Paladin2]

The Double-wide Latrina was against all.

[Uncle Miltie]

Is this a “Rasinist” decision?

Depends. Are the raisins in question golden?

[Paladin2]

Transtheft from tax-slaves.

[Paladin2]

"how does the BLM exist?"

Thanks to your Representatives in Congress.

Write a stern letter to the Speaker......

[1Old Pro]

Any reparations to the generations of farmers that were victims to this governmental theft?

We won't be able to cure this discrimination overnight.

[Go Gordon]

Are we talking about white raisins or black raisins here?

"I'll drink to that", said Teresa.

[MNDude]

I thought she was supposed to be wise.

[Chauncey Uppercrust]

Great decision, yet Raisins are apparently more important to at least 5 of these court members than unborn children or Christian values .

[Paladin2]

It is a lingering typo. The correct word is “wide”.

[riverdawg]

Justice Sotomayor filed a solo dissent, in which she sided entirely with the USDA. “The government may condition the ability to offer goods in the market on the giving-up of certain property interests without effecting a per se taking,” Sotomayor asserted

[Paladin2]

" The Court reaches a contrary conclusion only by expanding our per se takings doctrine in a manner that is as unwarranted as it is vague. I respectfully dissent. "

- The Wide Latrina

I'd suggest that the Court's definition of takings could use a broad extension.