SCOTUS gets one correct

Richard

Richard

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
9,076
Location
West Coast Resistance
Display Name
Display name:
Ack...city life
This case is about takings by the government. Also up for debate was what constitutes 'taking'.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/horne-v-department-of-agriculture-2/

Especially delicious is the court's decision seems to put the Ag Marketing Agreement (1937; FDR's New Deal) in jeopardy.

It was exciting to see the majority opinion contain reference to the Magna Carta and a brief history lesson.

SCOTUS, approving certiorari, remands the case to the 9th circuit. Such things are common. However I wonder if this could not dilute the SC decision especially that a) the 9th wrongly interpreted Loretto; b ) the 9th previously denied jurisdiction on this issue; c) the 9th proposed an illusory relationship wherein Horne had 'voluntarily' entered into a government-mandated program. Informed opinion would be helpful.
 
Last edited:
I assume that is about the raisin case.
I thought the sMe thing when I heard.
 
I heard it through the grapevine.
 
Having been the target of eminent domain more than once, any case about "taking" intrigues me.

Is there a cliff notes version of the cases? :)
 
Kelvin said:
Having been the target of eminent domain more than once, any case about "taking" intrigues me.

Is there a cliff notes version of the cases? :)
Click to expand...

Usually the opinions have a short summary on the first page.
 
Gerhardt said:
Yeah, maybe someone could summarize what's going on here.
Click to expand...
If I'm right, about, back around the depression, raisin prices were tumbling because of over production. The government decided that if they confiscate some of this over production then prices will stabilize at a higher rate. They have been confiscating these raisins ever since without reimbursing the farmer. I believe this is what SCOTUS said is unconstitutional.
 
One of my favorites is police property forfeiture, they don't even need proof and can take your stuff, cash, etc.

Frankly the government poses more of a threat to most of the types here then "criminals".
 
Anybody want to lay bets whether the department handling raisin confiscation will be eliminated post SCOTUS ruling?
 
pilot_dude said:
Anybody want to lay bets whether the department handling raisin confiscation will be eliminated post SCOTUS ruling?
Click to expand...

My money is on "No"

Personally, I'm surprised they didn't construe the confiscation as a "Tax" and thus call it acceptable.
 
pilot_dude said:
Anybody want to lay bets whether the department handling raisin confiscation will be eliminated post SCOTUS ruling?
Click to expand...


Not that I wanna turn this into a Spin Zone thread...but in this day and age, why the heck do we need a national Rasin Reserve?...this is where I want a Trump in office...

"Raisin Administrative Committee...YOU'RE FIRED!"
 
JOhnH said:
If I'm right, about, back around the depression, raisin prices were tumbling because of over production. The government decided that if they confiscate some of this over production then prices will stabilize at a higher rate. They have been confiscating these raisins ever since without reimbursing the farmer. I believe this is what SCOTUS said is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. What I mean is the program extended to forage dry crops (hay, etc) to silage to legumes, fruit, dairy and more. And participation in the program under the Act was mandatory, a farmer could not 'opt out'. The court answered three questions in this case. It makes very interesting reading. It is not laborious to read.

The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 established commissions which were to act to stabilize crop prices. It worked like this: farmers give a percentage of their production to the govt. The govt would dispose of that in which every way it decided. That included selling or donating to non-competitive markets. In return the farmers would benefit by price stabilization in the market.

In the event that through govt sales there were monies generated, the farmers would receive back monies less admin and other costs. The proceeds of the sales were to partially be used for subsidies of other farm operations. Basically, this was a cooperative but forced upon the farmers. Often enough nothing (zero) would come back to the farmers (zero net). Worse, the percentage the govt takings were nearly 100% of an entire crop in some instances although it was far less than that, typically 15-50%.

Perhaps some will remember in the 1970s and thereafter when dairymen were ordered by the fed govt to pour milk down the drain. Or whole fields of crop left to wilt in the field. It offends the sensibilities to waste valuable food especially when many even in this country are malnourished. This continues to this day thanks to this program. These things were done towards ensuring price stabilization. The consolation to the farmer is that some time in the future they would benefit like in the instance of poor crop production (weather, disease) or too large a supply from competing markets.

Defendant Horne said no. The govt tried to stiff arm Horne and lost. Now what a joyous day to think that the entire program in in serious jeopardy. It is one of the last vestiges of the Rotten New Deal.

And it only took one to bring down the curtain. That is a great lesson for our time.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
Not that I wanna turn this into a Spin Zone thread...but in this day and age, why the heck do we need a national Rasin Reserve?...this is where I want a Trump in office...

"Raisin Administrative Committee...YOU'RE FIRED!"
Click to expand...

Farming can be a brutal business. Plus it is capital intensive. Imagine the difficulties of surviving year to year while combatting flood or drought, disease, late season rain and a whole litany of things which can wipe you out.

Enter the govt. At this point the discussion would quickly turn to SZ material. Suffice to say that whatever value the program had, that day is long since gone. Plus, these days the typical 'farmer' is a multinational corporation with quick access to global markets.
 
Richard said:
Farming can be a brutal business. Plus it is capital intensive. Imagine the difficulties of surviving year to year while combatting flood or drought, disease, late season rain and a whole litany of things which can wipe you out.
Click to expand...

And funny enough, if mother nature cooperates and it's a banner year - it's a banner year for everyone, driving prices into the ground.
 
Gerhardt said:
And funny enough, if mother nature cooperates and it's a banner year - it's a banner year for everyone, driving prices into the ground.
Click to expand...

That is entirely too simplistic. Oh sure, there may be some truth in that but to a larger extent it's not that simple.

Here's a story; it was one of those 'banner years'. A glut of wine grapes. But not enough crush facilities to handle the volume. Growers scrambled to resolve this rare but serious problem. Some, if they were lucky, shipped their crop to other regions before the costs spiked. Then the shippers caught on because so many growers were vying for their services. Costs soared. Other growers thought they should wait for a more opportune time before harvesting. It was a careful balancing act waiting for that window of opportunity. Most growers missed the window and harvested what they could but leaving the majority of fruit to whither on the vine. Too, there was an ill timed soaking rain. Plus, the labor managers had the growers by the curlies as they bid out their scant labor.

The same could be said for anything from pumpkins to apples to beef.
 
James331 said:
One of my favorites is police property forfeiture, they don't even need proof and can take your stuff, cash, etc.

Frankly the government poses more of a threat to most of the types here then "criminals".
Click to expand...

Seizure the way it is performed is unconstitutional in several aspects, the primary I see is that it provides the executive branches funding outside of legislative budgets which circumvents the safeties built into the three branch 'checks and balances' system.
 
Nobody puts a gun to the "farmer's" head and requires that they participate in a program. If you don't go on the govt dole, they pretty much leave you alone.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Nobody puts a gun to the "farmer's" head and requires that they participate in a program. If you don't go on the govt dole, they pretty much leave you alone.
Click to expand...
Participation in the program was "mandatory". Perhaps that is not a gun to the head, but when the government makes something mandatory, they CAN send guys with guns to make you participate.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Nobody puts a gun to the "farmer's" head and requires that they participate in a program. If you don't go on the govt dole, they pretty much leave you alone.
Click to expand...

So many stupid gov't programs are not only stupid, but mandatory, and there are real penalties for daring to go it alone. The most dangerous thign to a career parasite is people who can actually take care of themselves.
 
I don't grow food or fiber, so we have to go it alone...not that I'm complaining. I once had the state come and offer erosion control help. Too many strings attached . Thanks, but no thanks. So they pretty much leave me alone.

The crop and dairy guys around here are in it ass deep, but they get all sorts of checks I don't.
 
The rule correctly (follow the actual law) with the little ones so it doesn't look so obvious that Roberts has been either bought by whomever is running Obama, or they have something on him.
 
Matthew said:
Yeah, this was in the news the other day:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...-taking-money-student-says-went-far/28872741/
Click to expand...

I've heard of such things before and initially I didn't believe the stories. It's so contradictory to the fifth amendment I thought it had to be a mistake. Apparently not.

Just floors me... and the mainstream public seems to view those of us standing up and saying "Hey the constitution says you can't do that!" as kooky fringe voters. So disheartening.
 
Richard said:
Defendant Horne said no. The govt tried to stiff arm Horne and lost. Now what a joyous day to think that the entire program in in serious jeopardy. It is one of the last vestiges of the Rotten New Deal.

And it only took one to bring down the curtain. That is a great lesson for our time.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the structure that was in place actually benefitted the Hornes. In a few years raisin production with be concentrated to a few mega corporations, and the Hornes along with other family producers will have to produce a different crop or be priced out of business.

But that's why we love capitalism, right?
 
Flying Viking said:
Ironically, the structure that was in place actually benefitted the Hornes. In a few years raisin production with be concentrated to a few mega corporations, and the Hornes along with other family producers will have to produce a different crop or be priced out of business.

But that's why we love capitalism, right?
Click to expand...
There's a lot of irony in the story. The raisin growers were practicing government sanctioned collusion. If you listen to the podcast, or at least read the transcript you'll see that other raisin growers had varying opinions of Horne.
 
Flying Viking said:
Ironically, the structure that was in place actually benefitted the Hornes. In a few years raisin production with be concentrated to a few mega corporations, and the Hornes along with other family producers will have to produce a different crop or be priced out of business.

But that's why we love capitalism, right?
Click to expand...

So Horne cut off their nose to spite there face, is that it? It looks like you are saying that the Horne's don't know their own business or at least don't know how to run a successful business.

This thread is going faster towards SZ than Dems registering dead people.
 
Everskyward said:
There's a lot of irony in the story. The raisin growers were practicing government sanctioned collusion. If you listen to the podcast, or at least read the transcript you'll see that other raisin growers had varying opinions of Horne.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that personal opinion are comparable to a SC decision? What does is matter what competing growers thought of one another? Or at least what has been reported. I know lots of ranchers who squabble but there they are all at the same BBQ or other trade functions carrying on in a fine & friendly manner. Many Most of these relationships go back more than a few generations.
 
Richard said:
Are you suggesting that personal opinion are comparable to a SC decision? What does is matter what competing growers thought of one another? Or at least what has been reported. I know lots of ranchers who squabble but there they are all at the same BBQ or other trade functions carrying on in a fine & friendly manner. Many Most of these relationships go back more than a few generations.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm only making the comment that there is a lot of irony in the story and that not all raisin farmers had the same opinion.
 
Richard said:
So Horne cut off their nose to spite there face, is that it? It looks like you are saying that the Horne's don't know their own business or at least don't know how to run a successful business.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that this may one day come back to bite them. After all, sometimes businesses make bad strategic decisions.

Richard said:
This thread is going faster towards SZ than Reps molesting little boys.
Click to expand...

There - fixed that for ya.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm only making the comment that there is a lot of irony in the story and that not all raisin farmers had the same opinion.
Click to expand...

Ok, but that can be applied to any group. I'm curious why you stated the obvious in such a way.

Where is the irony in this case? Serious question.
 
Richard said:
Ok, but that can be applied to any group. I'm curious why you stated the obvious in such a way.

Where is the irony in this case? Serious question.
Click to expand...
The irony is that some farmers in the same position as the Hornes had totally opposite opinions. Why do you think I have some sort of unstated agenda? I already said that I thought the program was government-sponsored collusion, which would seem to imply that I disagreed with it.
 
Everskyward said:
The irony is that some farmers in the same position as the Hornes had totally opposite opinions. Why do you think I have some sort of unstated agenda? I already said that I thought the program was government-sponsored collusion, which would seem to imply that I disagreed with it.
Click to expand...
But what's the point of even saying that? Right on this board we see people with similar backgrounds and situations that have totally opposite opinions. Some of us are right and the rest of you are wrong. :D That applies everywhere.
 
Everskyward said:
The irony is that some farmers in the same position as the Hornes had totally opposite opinions. Why do you think I have some sort of unstated agenda? I already said that I thought the program was government-sponsored collusion, which would seem to imply that I disagreed with it.
Click to expand...

Goodness, Mari. I don't think you have an unstated agenda here. I was simply asking why state the obvious; no group in monolithic and we all know it. It is incredibly obvious.

Treat yourself to a refreshing ice tea.

EDIT: I think I see the source of misunderstanding. In post #30 you said, "...opinion of Horne." In post #37 it looks like you mean (different) opinion of the program.
 
Last edited:
Flying Viking said:
Ironically, the structure that was in place actually benefitted the Hornes. In a few years raisin production with be concentrated to a few mega corporations, and the Hornes along with other family producers will have to produce a different crop or be priced out of business.

But that's why we love capitalism, right?
Click to expand...

If you can't compete, you don't belong in the business.

Why should consumers have to pay inflated prices for a product just to keep them in business?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top