Supreme Court

In Major Victory for Property Rights, SCOTUS Strikes Down USDA Seizure of California Raisins

Raisin farmers prevail over unconstitutional government regulation.

|

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public use. But according to a 1949 "Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California," the U.S. Department of Agriculture is permitted to demand a portion of each year's California raisin crop, free of charge. The title to those raisins passes to an entity known as the Raisin Administrative Committee, which is allowed to use the raisins for its own purposes. Those purposes include giving the raisins away for free to school lunch programs or selling them for foreign export. If it sells them, it gets to use the proceeds to fund its own operations.

In a decision issued today in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the USDA's raisin confiscation scheme as an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Credit: C-SPAN

"The reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin Committee is a clear physical taking," observed Chief Justice John Roberts. "Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the Government. Title to the raisins passes to the Raisin Committee." That is a textbook example of an uncompensated government taking of private property, Roberts held, and it therefore must fall under the plain text of the Fifth Amendment.

Roberts' opinion was joined in full by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred in part and dissented in part. 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.

Today's ruling is a major victory for property rights and a welcome rebuke to government regulators who try to stretch their powers beyond the limits set by the Constitution. The Court's opinion in Horne v. USDA is available here.

Related: Reason TV's "Feds vs. Raisins: Small Farmers Stand Up to the USDA."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

164 responses to “In Major Victory for Property Rights, SCOTUS Strikes Down USDA Seizure of California Raisins

    1. 5-4 is too damn close for this…

      1. 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.

        I don’t know her but, with that kind of attitude, I despise her

        1. I’ve never been good at legalese, but did she essentially say this is legal because “we’re not taking them from you, we’re forcing you to give them to us”?

          1. That seems to sum it up nicely.

            “Hey, if you don’t want to give the government some of your raisins, then don’t grow raisins. It’s a free country!”

            ^This is what some people actually believe^

            1. And frequently what proglodytes argue without a hint of parody.

              1. Well, in all fairness, the original intent of the law was to raise the price of raisins – what better way to do that then drive most of the raisin producers out of business?

            2. I work in local government. This is a common theme.

          2. Basically. “Give it to us or you can’t sell the rest of your crop and starve” is A-OK with her….

          3. No, she’s saying, “If you want to sell anything, you need the government’s permission.” Which is worse, in my opinion.

            I’m glad she lost.

        2. Despise is warranted. Her drivel is complete and utter sophistry.

        3. In other words, the government can take anyting it wants, just by making it a condition of doing anything you should have every right to do. NUTS!

        4. What if we made the right to get married conditional upon giving it away to a certain number of government officials first?

          1. It’s good to be the King.

            1. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

        5. She’s just defending the interests of the totalitarian state.

        6. this kind of fascistic thinking and values were openly known about her during her confirmation hearings….. and the Senate cleared her anyway. The only bungle thay perpetrated worse than that was to also comfirm Kagan a year or so later. Both have strong soclalist, fascist, big government, government as god values. WE knew this about both… but the Senators were too stupid to read and learn, and confirmed them both.

      2. You assume they have read the constitution. Sotomayer has shown she’s not just a statest,but a socialist. I bet she would have no problem with a government take over of a whole industry,like Truman tried,or some of the new deal that was struck down. Wicker v Filburn is a slam dunk for this idiot.

        1. Once again, we see the dangers of Democratic Presidents making Supreme Court appointments.

          1. Because the Republican appointed Justices NEVER make the wrong call.

            1. Of course they do, but the way to bet is that the Democrat appointees will be worse, on average.

          2. 3 words John Paul Stevens

          3. those appointments are always conditional on the consent of the Senate…. two thrds must vote to confirm. We had enough Republican Senators to axe both Sotomayor and Kagan… yet both sit on that rotten court.

      3. It may not be quite that close, there are partial concurrences about the prime issues, and some of the dissent deals with procedure / remedy (I think…. I only just glanced at it).

        Overall, aside from Sotomayor, it looks pretty good for an written text understanding of the Vth.

        1. That was my thought. Even Darth Vader Ginsburg and that idiot Breyer were not stupid enough to go full dissent on this one. If the gov’t gives you the “choice” if giving up something or starving, it’s not much of a choice…

      4. The decision was 8-1 on whether it was a taking.

        It was 5-4 on how much compensation the Hornes were entitled to.

  1. 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.

    We can steal the wheels off of your car but you’ll still be able to drive.

    1. Yeah, that is truly idiotic.

    2. Let there be no doubt, that Sotomayor is nothing but a government stooge, providing legal cover to any government action regardless of the existence of any kind of rationally lawful justification. Which means she has the makings of a truly great SCOTUS justice.

      1. She wrote the opinion in the case saying that the City of Los Angeles can’t demand motel operators produce a list of recent guests at any time, though. Like all of them, she is a mixed bag.

    3. I think her dissent was that you would receive the proceeds from disposition of the wheels. But then she notes that for many years net proceeds were zero. Somehow she put that in writing with her name on it.

    4. The mafia could learn a thing or two from the US government. They see it as part of the cost of doing business. They never said you can’t grow raisins, you just can’t sell them in the US without a kickback.

      1. or even export them.. remember, USDA control all agricutlre exports. Wana lay ball? Ya gotta buy ours. AND play on our home field, Oh, and we write the ruie, too.

        1. Reup the package

  2. Another 5-4 “decision”. This stuff is downright scary.

    1. I concur. The idea that this was a borderline decision is terrifying. This kind of stuff is pretty clearly covered in black and white terms by reading the plain text of the constitution… how can 4 of our supreme court justices not see that?

      If things keep going in this direction, my generation will be the last to see even a slim glimpse of actual justice from the supreme court.

      1. The other 4 know damn well it’s unconstitutional, they just don’t give a crap if it conflicts with the result they want.

        1. I don’t know, 3 of the 4 only disagreed with part of the ruling, kind of hard to say where they stand without reading their actual response.

          Sotomayor however, I’m sorry but she needs to be sent to the garden supply store

          1. I’m not even surprised that Sotomayor ruled this way. I am interested in reading the other 3 opinions though, I wonder if they try to categorize raisins as somehow different from other personal property.

      2. Hey, at least they’ll have same-sex marriage

        1. Haha, I suppose so. Not that this is even an issue that should be discussed by the government…

      3. They are lawyers. Their job is to hammer away at a piece of legislation until it can be interpreted to suit their clients’ needs, namely whichever ideological school they happen to be affiliated with.

        Ain’t positive law a beautiful thing?

        1. Only for the people whom its designed to serve.

      4. I’ve seen the Constitution in person. It’s kind of faded and hard to read. It’s also, like, 100 years old or something.

        In other words What difference, at this point, does it matter?

        1. It was written by white men with the blood of slaves.

          1. I don’t think the ink they dipped their quills into was the blood of anyone, let alone slaves. Ink is ink. Blood is blood.

            Be careful here. Or you’ll venture into the realm that Oakland schools found testy.

            http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..ral-funds/

    2. To the point of “is this a taking”, it was an 8-1 decision. The 3 in the middle’s question is about the level of compensation.

      1. How much did they ask Horne as for??

        1. ^Wow, not sure how that sentence got so screwed up.

          Correction: How much did Horne ask for?

          1. The amount of the fine for not turning over his grapes (which was $4.8million, I think, the market value of the grapes according to the agency).

            The dissent argued that since the grape siezure raised the price of grapes, that benefit should be taken into account to reduce the value of the would-be siezed grapes. What’s funny, though, is that Homes’ grapes were not seized. He withheld them and sold them. Therefore, the price he received was the price he would have received without the siezure.

            I don’t understand the dissent’s position, at all.

            1. Wait, so the government was unsuccessful in trying to seize the raisins? The Hornes kept them and sold them on the market anyway? I’m so confused now haha

              1. Don’t be.

                It’s like in my day, when the cops took your dope or beer and let you off with a warning. Then they drank the beer or smoked the dope with their friends when they were off duty.

                Think I’m kidding? I’ve actually attended parties where off duty LEOs provided the beer and/or MJ and mentioned that they got it from some recent bust they’d made. All the other governmental employees in attendance just laughed.

                Me, I left in disgust.

  3. A very interesting passage, especially since it’s couched as an explicit part of the holding and not dicta:

    “The Fifth Amendment applies to personal property as well as real property. The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.”

    Asset forfeiture, anyone?

    1. That’s different. In the case of asset forfeiture, the asset committed a crime.

      1. A crime which never has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Because FYTW.

      2. These raisins committed the crime of being born.

        /Sotomayor

        1. The raisin’s crime was being owned by the person(s) that actually produced them.

          1. Slavery I tell you. It’s still with us.

            (que Kellog’s raisin bran commercial)

      3. which concept has NO BASIS in the Constitution. Remember, every accused has the right to confront witnesses presented against, to question them, and to present evidence in its own behalf. Have any of you ever seen or heard money talk? Reaso? Listen and respond? Present evidence on its own behalf? Retain an attorney? swear an oath? All these are required capabiltiies for any accused to be able to perform. When money can stand up and talk…..

  4. I maintain that just as criminal juries must be unanimous or the charge fails, so must appeals ruligs be even more unanimous: if wise judges can’t agree unanimously on what a law means, the law must be voided in its entirety as simply too vague, unclear, etc for any regular peasant.

    I am dead serious. If a law is so unclear that judges disagree on what it means, with all their education, experience, and months from hearing to opinion to ponder its intricacies, what hope is there for anyone else, including people, polie,, prosecutors, and regular courts?

    1. So in this case would it be that the takings clause of the Constitution is vacated for vagueness? Everybody was clear about what the raisins law “means,” after all.

      (Also, maybe in a perfect world where no judge would ever dream of playing dumb to strike down a law he or she doesn’t like, but have you seen the Supreme Court lately?)

      1. Of course not. The question was whether the law allowing the Raisin Marketing Group (or whatever its name is) is constitution. A divided result throws the law out.

        Don’t be silly.

    2. There are several states where criminal juries do not need to be unanimous. I believe Lewiziannnnna is one of them.

  5. The title to those raisins passes to an entity known as the Raisin Administrative Committee, which is allowed to use the raisins for its own purposes.

    Why is there even such a thing as a Raising Administrative Committee? Is it 1935 again?

    1. People tell me that Atlas Shrugged is fiction. I’m not so sure.

      1. Have you seen the T-shirts? “Atlas Shrugged–Now, Non-Fiction”.

        1. No. But that is so cool!

          1. Actually, if I mention Atlas Shrugged to most people I know, they immediately discount it and me as well, as being a ridiculous fantasy and me as an “out there” Libertarian with no sense of reality.

            This really perturbes me. Not because of the slight of my person. But because they can’t see the parallels in the story and how this country, and most of the world, operates today.

            Individuals are crushed under the wheels of the state. All for our collective good.

    2. Because it was created in the FDR years, and never repealed — and even with this 5-4 split, this agency was not disbanded. They can try some other approach to do the same thing — such as apply a tax which can be paid for with money or raisins.

    3. Back in 1917, I believe, the government created the National Spruce Conservation Board in order to insure that there was an ample supply of wood for aircraft spars.

      I may be wrong, but that board wasn’t abolished until sometime in the 1970’s(!).

      Apparently the wood worked well in F-14 wings??

      1. Wood doesn’t reflect Radar as well as metal – it made the Mosquito a stealth fighter/bomber

        1. The use of wood in that aircraft was make it fast and to save resources.

          1. I know that, but it had secondary benefits as well.

      2. Mine sweepers? Dunno, just trying to give the devil the benefit of the doubt.

  6. …the U.S. Department of Agriculture is permitted to demand a portion of each year’s California raisin crop, free of charge. The title to those raisins passes to an entity known as the Raisin Administrative Committee, which is allowed to use the raisins for its own purposes. Those purposes include giving the raisins away for free to school lunch programs or selling them for foreign export. If it sells them, it gets to use the proceeds to fund its own operations.

    How does it take 65 years for this to be challenged, and how is this a 5-4 split? Jesus Christ, liberals are just awful on personal rights.

    1. For seriously.

    2. It’s 8-1 on whether the raisin set-aside was a taking; only Sotomayor said it should get a full pass. The other liberals only disagreed with the majority on how to work out compensation.

      1. You read the opinion? That’s not so bad, then.

      2. Another David|6.22.15 @ 11:23AM|#
        “It’s 8-1 on whether the raisin set-aside was a taking; only Sotomayor said it should get a full pass”
        Thx.
        Much better; and it simply proves Sotomayor would have risen to the top in some dictatorships I could name.

        1. Something north of a few million folks in CA would vote for her as dictator, simply based on their ethnic or political tribal membership being the same as hers.

          It’s scary I tell you.

    3. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of raisin farmers supported it because they personally benefited from the plan

      1) This would act as a huge barrier to entry for potential new raisin farms as their profit would be capped during the period they were trying to recoup their initial investments
      2) This strongly favors large corporate farms over smaller ones
      3) The strongly encourages all raisin farmers to behave as a cartel and keep to a strict quota system as any over production would essentially be penalized by increasing the portion the government took
      4) This policy acts to set a price floor for raisins on the open market by removing any excess supply

      So the confiscated raisins are basically the bribe the big raisin farms pay to get a pretty hefty crony payout from the government and iirc it was a smaller family farmer who was trying to grow his business that got tired of the government keeping him down to challenge the law.

      1. “So the confiscated raisins are basically the bribe the big raisin farms pay to get a pretty hefty crony payout from the government and iirc it was a smaller family farmer who was trying to grow his business that got tired of the government keeping him down to challenge the law”

        We have the Mayor’s Conference going on in SF. Various businesses are pitching the mayors for rent, including Sales Force. Benioff is a MAJOR contributor to lefty politicos, but of course that sort of conflict only matters if he listed to port.

        1. Interesting. I wish I had known this on Father’s Day.

          I met two Sales Force techies at a family event. Typical, limousine liberal types. They make great pay, believe in a never ending future, and don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t support the government’s efforts to make things better for “the less fortunate”.

          But, they consider themselves independent and individual thinkers. Not statists at all.

          If only I had known that Sales Force was seeking favors. They could have never argued themselves out of that one.

      2. Maybe, but they’re not all big raisin farms affected. Smaller farms are just as capable of bringing suit (technically) and they have had to have been negatively affected by the competition the government was bringing to the market with the farmers’ own raisins.

        1. Yes, and it was a small one that eventually challenged the law and the reason it took so long is that a) most farmers, even the small ones, inherently believe farm subsidies are a good thing and b) even if you had a small farmer who was opposed to the scheme he needed to have either the financial assets to take a case to the Supreme Court (unlikely) or have a non profit fund him on doing so (only likely recently) *AND* have the mental fortitude for that fight as opposed to just saying fuck it and selling the farm to condo developers

          1. Thing is this program is in no way a subsidy. It is sort of price stabilization, but in “bad” years, when the price drops the farmers don’t get a proportional amount back. If they *actually* held the raisins in reserve and then sold them in bad years and returned the money to farmers it owuld make sense.

            But they don’r sell them in bad years. They give them away to the school lunch program or sell them and use the money to fund export subsidies and parties for themselves.
            That’s why the Hornes got nothing back for their excess raison production for several years.

            1. I’m not disagreeing with that part but how many people vehemently fight for Social Security to be untouched when it is plainly obvious that it directly harms them and provides a lower level of income security in their retirement than if they had just invested that same money in a retirement account. Just because it is bad for the smaller raisin farmers does not mean that they realize that fact and even if they did that leads to my second reason.

              what are they going to do about it? Most small farmers don’t have the financial assets to take on the Federal Government and how many of the ones who do have the psychological make up to do so?

              That is why it took so long for this to be challenged in court

          2. “most farmers, even the small ones, inherently believe farm subsidies are a good thing”

            I have family that farms in the San Joaquin valley. 10,000 acres and five dairies.

            They don’t want the government to interfere in anything. Except for dairy price supports. Which they support so wholeheartedly that, I was once on the verge of being thrown out of their home for saying that government subsidies to farmers were no different than those received by the “welfare queens” they were besmirching at that moment.

            I love them dearly. They are great people. But, they just don’t get it.

      3. More particularly, the proceeds of the sale of the raisins is used to subsidize raisin exporters.

        If you aren’t a raisin exporter then you don’t benefit from the sale. Your raisins are basically been sold to benefit producers large enough to be exporters.

    4. Proprety rights,including owning one’s self,are the bed rock of a free society.Eliminate them and all the others fall away.NSA,FBI,ATF,DEA,CIA,IRS, all depend on the elimination of property rights.And of couse local LEOs.

      1. Don’t forget DHS and their minions INS and TSA.

    5. We can see that the conservatives got right on the case.

    6. you do not understand the corrupt mature and workings of the courts in California. And the “government demands it, it must be right” mantra of most of those folks, even in the Central Valley. It has been far too easy for far too long to go along to get along. This family decided, on the principals of liberty and the rule of law, to fight it. and the Raisin Board did a pretty good job of persecuting them for rocking the boat. It has cost them dearly, but they decided to stick with it on principle. and now they are vindicated, which needed to happen generations ago.

      1. California: The SJW state!

  7. So what parts of this ruling did three “justices” dissent from in part?

    Sotomayor we know is a sack of shite on this topic.

    1. Part III of the decision, which dealt with the level of compensation the government must pay for the taking.

  8. 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.

    That paragraph took a lot of semantic gymnastics to pull off. If the government conditions the ability to offer goods in a market, how is that not a per se taking? Sotomayor thinks that as long as you don’t downright STEAL from me, then your actions precluding me from selling my property to whoever wants it is all right and dandy with her, fuck property rights.

    1. Hey, it’s not like they marched those little raisins into their coffers at gunpoint….or is it?

      1. these folks refused to deliver the demanded “protection money” to the Board, thus incurring the wrath, and legal action, of the board against them… finding they “owe” some huge sum of money, $5Mn or so. The rule was that the raisin producers had to deliver the stolen, er, repurposed, er, demanded, er, kidnapped raisins to the Board’s warehouse with no compentation. This as a precondition on the “right” to sell the rest of the crop on the open market. This family said NOPE, not us. “you ain’t a talkin to me, I may be crazy and all like that but I got good sense, you see….. ”

        They’ve been fighting thjis battle against the Raisin Board for years. High time they are vindicated.

    2. That’s right. According to a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, the federal government owns your right to earn a living, and it can sell it back to you whenever it wants and under whatever conditions it deems appropriate.

      If you’re not scared about that, you should be.

      1. Shaking in my boots actually.

        Is there hope that others will ever wake up from their slumber?

    3. Her statement makes sense in the context of the US govt owning all markets and the price of admission to the market in the case of raisins is a % of the crop every year. I’m actually surprised markets for other goods are not regulated in a similar way. There is already widespread regulation on service providers… licensing, purchasing a medallion, membership in a trade organization, etc.

      1. Share cropping for the government. What a concept!

    4. The dirty truth is, “Progressive” = REPRESSIVE……

      “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'”
      -Thomas Jefferson

      “To take a single step beyond the boundaries specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to definition.”
      -Thomas Jefferson

      1. I love Jefferson. A man well before his time.

        But, remember, old dead white guys are not in vogue now.

        The results are telling.

  9. I’m buying a box of raisins to celebrate!

    1. And immediately throwing it in the trash?

      1. Only 30% of it. And it will go into a holding bin for several years to cover the possibility that there will be a raisin shortage sometime.

  10. By this benchmark, Sotomayor must be all for “Civil Asset Forfeiture”. Be Wary!

    1. Well,yes

    2. she is all for theft of various forms, racial affirmative action seems to bring those with criminal urges but little or no energy or ability into positions where they can finally indulge their anti-social tendencies.

  11. Hey! They got one right!

    5-4? Yeah. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

    1. SCOTUS = war lords

  12. The Patriots won Super Bowls by the tightest of margins. So take the win and run I say.

    Weirder than the close decision, is that America is arguing over raisins now. The government wants your guns AND raisins.

    1. Oh no! The rumors about the cannibal raisin super-soldier project were true!

      1. Two….three words:

        Area

        Fifty

        One

        *looks around nervously – adjusts grapevine crown*

    2. They came for the guns, and I said nothing, because I didn’t want the government to know about my guns.

      No, wait…

    3. and, probably all the white women too!

  13. Can somebody translate the “strong Latina’s” words into English?

    1. Is she strong AND wise? Doesn’t seem quite fair that she wound up being the world’s most perfect Latina woman.

      1. Sofia Vergara would like to have a word with you.

    2. Sorry – “wise Latina”. Thought it Really should be “wise” Latina.

  14. “Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the Government. Title to the raisins passes to the Raisin Committee.”

    Precisely the words every young jurist imagines himself penning after being anointed primus inter pares of the most powerful judiciary in human history.

    1. Sounds like a sweet gig. Does it come with jus primae noctis too?

  15. Why can’t we have any good Supreme Court justices? Sotomayor is the best in the court when it comes to the 4th Amendment, then she pulls crap like this.

      1. What are your thoughts on woodchippers?

      2. And me!

        I’ll even sign dissenting opinions off with “fuck off, slavers!”

        1. I’ll even sign dissenting opinions off with “fuck off, slavers!”

          FIFY.

        2. I’ll even sign dissenting opinions off with “fuck off, slavers!”

          FIFY.

          1. Actually, that would work in both cases. True.

    1. Kennedy was close.. then he Kelo’d his legacy into a toaster. Or was it a woodchipper? I forget.

  16. On cases concerning economic liberty, the wise Latina will be a terrible Marxist.

    1. But she’s actually good when it comes to 5th Amendment cases. She’s like the opposite of Alito.

  17. And on the CNN and MSNB all they can talk about is a fucking flag.Too the chipper I say.

  18. Once again, Sonja proves to be the dim bulb in box of light in SCOTUS. So if the government demanded 80% of your goods for whatever use it wanted, by her definition of “takings” that would be fine. She is by far the dumbest educated women….well next to Sheila Jackson Lee

  19. Don’t give me that there’s no difference between the two parties nonsense. The best thing Bush did was put 2 on the court, because with a dem court these cases are 9-0 against the constitution

  20. “Wise” latina, meet woddchipper; woodchipper do your duty.

    Note for any thin-skinned yet overzealous employees of the SDNY In my dialect woodchipper refers to something wholly lawful, nice and fun; also, in my hypothetical, imaginary, never-could-actually-happen-in-real-life scenario, “Wise” latina could be anyone and does not at all refer to the dumbest member of SCOTUS who was obviously a diversity hire.

  21. It was interesting. I didn’t mind the fact that there was no romantic interest. Gives you more time for action but you more nice video check this way and comment me
    Best Home Deal ?????? http://www.BuzzReport20.com

  22. In all seriousness, what does this mean for the Drug War? Are we starting to see kinks in the Commerce Clause armor that protects federal prohibition?

    1. Not bloody likely.

      Kinda on-topic (on property ownership and how government interferes and fucks that up, surprising no one here):

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ch…..d-poverty/

      Forbes pointing out how California’s liberal effete effect “takings” all the time, using government, in order to keep housing supply down, so none of the “undesirables” live near them. The fucking irony of this is so rich.

  23. ON-TOPIC: It’s an 8-1 decision, no question.

    The three concurring (led by Breyer) only believed that the case should be remanded for the calculation of just compensation for the taking, while the majority said, “No need. The amount of the taking is normally the FMV at the time of the taking, but in this case, the regulatory scheme calculated the FMV of the raisins as part of the fine when they refused to pay. We already know the amount. It’s been ten years. Give them their $483K plus costs.” Boom.

    The government was going to try to fuck them out of the lost raisin proceeds, but the court gave them the value that the government had already calculated as part of the robbe- er, regulatory scheme.

    1. And yes, to answer someone’s question above, it was the “The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.” Only took 78 years for another piece of shit New Deal legislation to get cracked. For any true free market proponents, you’ll cry at the opening sentence. “The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate “marketing orders” to help maintain stable markets for particular agricultural products.”

      There you are. Socialism at its finest. Some unelected douche gets the power to regulate all of US Agriculture to maintain “stable markets.” Un-fucking-believable. And this is what you get in return: one of the years, the “toll” that the Hornes had to pay was 47%! Forty-seven fucking percent for the right to sell the other 53%. The other year was “only” thirty-percent.

      Fuck this country and all its statist motherfuckers.

  24. In other news: raisins are still terrible.

    1. Raisins are yummy, especially with oats, such as oatmeal or granola bars. They also form bands they do cover songs from the sixties.

  25. The Raisin Commission has to be one of the more awesomely named bureaucratic agencies ever conceived…

  26. This is what I mean when I say Scalia is bipolar.

  27. Completely off topic, but I just wanted to drop this.

  28. “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'”
    -Thomas Jefferson

    “To take a single step beyond the boundaries specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to definition.”
    -Thomas Jefferson

  29. Central committee is displeased.

  30. The wise-ass Latina is a sophist, not an intellectual.

    -jcr

    1. fascist fits her better. Government control of private means of production. ANY attempt by gummint to regulate or buffer markets for any commodity is fascist.

    2. Had the plaintiffs been more to her liking, aka Latino, she’d have ruled with the majority.

  31. “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.
    Thus sayeth the wise latina judge… who, as I recall, hails from that area of California. Under that section of the Constitutioin do FedGov have to setting “condition on the ability to offer goods in the market” on anything? Unless Sotomayor wants to concede that the Dept of Agriculture is effectively a fascist arm of the government, she loses. GOvernment can NOT control any aspect of the private means of production.

    I am glad this case is over, and decided in favour of the farmers. This has been a ripoff for years, and has needed to end for years.

  32. Evidence that Sotomayor is an unmitigated whack job.

  33. 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.

    That is some grade A evil right there.

  34. I have low expectations for Sotomayor. Her biography suggests to me that she is driven by a SJW agenda and has a chip on her shoulder. Her ruling is entirely in character with Obama’s “you didn’t build that” views of markets, in which businesses supposedly only exist and operate by the grace of government and because of government spending. She also has an obsession about affirmative action, because she seems to believe that merely based on her own academic and professional achievements, she’d have never reached this high position… and she is probably right.

  35. All that I can say is, what took them so long?

    All hail Caesar!

    And, damn, we are now all that much clearer on where Sotomayer stands. It’s positively scary!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.