I suppose I could have found a different pic, but, Gene Simmons doesn’t bother me. (heh!)
So, there’s this ……
This may not seem like a big deal, but, it is. The implications are far reaching concerning present and future Federal activity in this regard!
You may have heard it through the grapevine: the California raisin farmers who challenged the federal government’s power to seize a substantial portion of each year’s crop as part of a New Deal price-floor scheme had a very strong case under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, overturning the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Horne v. USDA, ruling the farmers could not be fined for keeping their crop, and that they were due fair compensation.
The issue was whether the Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC), under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, could require farmers to set aside large percentage of the crop for the government to deal with as it wished without just compensation.
The government had argued that because it often sold the crop and returned profits to the farmers, that satisfied the Fifth Amendment. Marvin and Lorna Horne disagreed, barring the government’s truck from their property. The Court sided with the farmers.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision for the 8-1 majority (which narrowed on certain issues). There were three main findings.
First, the Court found that the Fifth Amendment required the government to pay just compensation even if the property at issue was personal property and not “real” property (i.e. land or real estate).
Second, the Court ruled that the government had not satisfied the requirement to pay just compensation merely by reserving the farmers a potential percentage of the profits of selling their property at the government’s own discretion.
Third, the Court found that the government’s requirement that farmers reserve a portion of their crops as a condition of entering the raisin industry was indeed a “taking” of property.
The Court also found that the farmers did not have to pay the fine before suing.
Three justices dissented in part, saying the lower courts should have decided whether the Hornes would actually have been due any compensation for the particular years in which they resisted participation in the government’s reserve program.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the lone dissent, arguing that because the government’s taking “does not deprive the Hornes of all their property rights, it does not effect a per se taking.”
Justice Clarence Thomas added a pun in a concurring opinion, noting that if the government was not taking raisins for an actual “public use,” then calculating their value would be a “fruitless exercise.”
Contrast and compare the emboldened part. I’d take a Clarence Thomas any day over the anti-intellectual Sotomayor. She is a spectacular imbecile. Because someone or something doesn’t take all that I have, it doesn’t “per se” mean that they’re taking?
This will, of course, adversely effect some raisin farmers, but, make the better farmers more money. There’s no longer going to be a government dictating the lowest price for the raisins.
After this ruling takes a hold, the prices should drop …. for a short time. The ones who cannot produce in sufficient quantities will do something else. This will, then, make the supply of raisins shorter, which will then move the price of raisins upward towards the truer market value of raisins. ….. assuming no further interference from the feds.
As fantastic as that is, that’s not the point of my post. It’s greater and broader than that. It is the application of the 5th amendment.