Half your raisins are belong to us

[dank69]

What are you talking about, most of the growers likely weren't even alive when this law came about. It wasn't a law specifically for raisin growers, it's the "agricultural marketing act" , which was applied to raisin growers (among others).



Oh, the horror, he decided he didn't want to have someone just take his stuff and get nothing back for it. That's just so evil and greedy of him, how dare he.



Actually, no, that's wrong. They didn't "deliberately break the law", they came up with a way to circumvent the law, and ultimately the scotus agreed with them that the law is unconstitutional.



I don't think it's a matter of the punishment. At issue is the law that demands the government be able to simply take a portion of the goods at will without any compensation or recourse, not the punishment for breaking the law. The government will have to find a different way to achieve its supposed goals (whatever they are).

Yes, they will probably pay farmers to not plant raisins the way they do with other crops.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't disagree about playing within the bounds of the constitution and I had to go back to re-read to see that there was a year they received no compensation. I do think its important to note that it is the farmers themselves who decide how much to tun over to the government so it does not appear that the government is going in and and taking the raisins whenever they want:

Well, sorta. A committee of farmers sets the percentage that has to be turned over. That doesn't mean each farmer gets to decide what to turn over, they are at the whim of the committee. In essence, each specific farmer has little or no control over how much of the produce is taken away, and they get little or no compensation for it. That's just plain wrong, it's easy to see how even a usually very divided court agreed 8-1 on this case.

The one idiot, sotomayor, had this gem:

“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,”

So basically, they can say "sure, you may sell your goods in the market, but only if you agree to give us some portion of your goods, without receiving any compensation". Nope, that's not taking anything, not at all.

Glad the rest of the court was not OK with that.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, they will probably pay farmers to not plant raisins the way they do with other crops.

... and if that's the route they choose to go, that's fine. The law as it stood was an abomination.

 

[PokerGuy]

You did not just quote me, you misrepresented my positions to give yourself a phony argument to attack.

You just didn't like the idiocy in your post highlighted. We get it, it's OK, you can visit that costco now

Challenging one's actual position is much harder, requiring thought and actual intelligence instead of rage and blind partisan dogma.)

You whining about blind partisan dogma is absolutely hysterical, though I doubt you're smart enough to see the irony. It's like A-rod complaining about some pitcher using roids.

 

[boomerang]

'I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.' - Thomas Sowell

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

'I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.' - Thomas Sowell

CBD or LBD? lol

 

[Bowfinger]

One can be both correct on the merits and still an ass, and this guy might meet both criteria.

Yep, exactly.

That being said, it seems we needed someone to be exactly that kind of ass to get this stupid relic of FDR thrown out. As others pointed out, this law should have never been allowed to exist in the first place.

Perhaps, though it seems Horne turned to the courts only as a last resort. He first tried to evade and circumvent the law. That's why, IMO, he's a bullheaded ass, even though I agreed throughout that this law needed to be reviewed. I wonder how the great majority of raisin producers are reacting to this decision (given that they supported the law), and how the change will impact them.

 

[PokerGuy]

One can be both correct on the merits and still an ass, and this guy might meet both criteria.

How so? I certainly don't know all the details, but what exactly makes this guy an ass? Just because he didn't want to go along with something so patently absurd and wrong? Is there some aspect to the backstory that tells us the guy is an ass, other than not conforming to the stupid law, which was the correct thing to do?

 

[Bowfinger]

How so? I certainly don't know all the details, but what exactly makes this guy an ass? Just because he didn't want to go along with something so patently absurd and wrong? Is there some aspect to the backstory that tells us the guy is an ass, other than not conforming to the stupid law, which was the correct thing to do?

"Reading is so hard."

 

[OutHouse]

I wonder how the great majority of raisin producers are reacting to this decision (given that they supported the law), and how the change will impact them.

does not matter, the law from the beginning was outside the scope of government reach and should have never become said law.

 

[OutHouse]

"Reading is so hard."

since you keep repeating this over and over in this thread, are you confessing you have difficulties in reading? i would suggest a good tutor.

 

[Bowfinger]

does not matter, the law from the beginning was outside the scope of government reach and should have never become said law.

OK? That doesn't negate my question, nor does it contradict anything I said. What part of, "I agree it's a strange law that should be reviewed" is too hard for you clowns to grasp? You're so stubbornly partisan you can't even see when someone is agreeing with you.

since you keep repeating this over and over in this thread, are you confessing you have difficulties in reading? i would suggest a good tutor.

More weaksauce. You can join PokerGuy in the limp wit club.

 

[OutHouse]

OK? That doesn't negate my question, nor does it contradict anything I said. What part of, "I agree it's a strange law that should be reviewed" is too hard for you clowns to grasp? You're so stubbornly partisan you can't even see when someone is agreeing with you.



More weaksauce. You can join PokerGuy in the limp wit club.

hey! ive been told my sauce is strong :hmm: :awe:

 

[werepossum]

Yes, they will probably pay farmers to not plant raisins the way they do with other crops.

Probably pay them not to plant grapes and then let them dry out. Maybe form an emergency grape hydration department.

On the plus side, if they pay farmers to not produce raisins then someone in the Department of Agriculture is doing his or her happy dance because she once again has a farmer to manage.

Well, sorta. A committee of farmers sets the percentage that has to be turned over. That doesn't mean each farmer gets to decide what to turn over, they are at the whim of the committee. In essence, each specific farmer has little or no control over how much of the produce is taken away, and they get little or no compensation for it. That's just plain wrong, it's easy to see how even a usually very divided court agreed 8-1 on this case.

The one idiot, sotomayor, had this gem:

So basically, they can say "sure, you may sell your goods in the market, but only if you agree to give us some portion of your goods, without receiving any compensation". Nope, that's not taking anything, not at all.

Glad the rest of the court was not OK with that.

Evidently this particular wise Latina's rich life experiences included severe head trauma as she is literally arguing that government can take a thing without that constituting government, um, taking that thing. Even Darth Bader Ginsberg isn't THAT government happy.

'I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.' - Thomas Sowell

Exactly.

 

[CPA]

Let the price war begin.

Good.

 

[CPA]

Yep, exactly.


Perhaps, though it seems Horne turned to the courts only as a last resort. He first tried to evade and circumvent the law. That's why, IMO, he's a bullheaded ass, even though I agreed throughout that this law needed to be reviewed. I wonder how the great majority of raisin producers are reacting to this decision (given that they supported the law), and how the change will impact them.

If it takes a bullheaded ass to get an unconstitutional law removed, then I have no problem with his bullheadedness.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Were the people who rose up against discriminatory laws in the south bullheaded asses? Were the sons of liberty bullheaded asses for dumping tea overboard in Boston harbor? Were my ancestors bullheaded asses for violating fugitive slave laws to help runaway slaves get to freedom?

 

[PokerGuy]

Were the people who rose up against discriminatory laws in the south bullheaded asses? Were the sons of liberty bullheaded asses for dumping tea overboard in Boston harbor? Were my ancestors bullheaded asses for violating fugitive slave laws to help runaway slaves get to freedom?

All good points.

I'm still looking for what exactly makes the guy qualify as an ass. He might very well be, but what part of the story related to this guy makes people say that?

 

[PokerGuy]

"Reading is so hard."

Apparently we can take your lame answer as "I don't know" then? If you do, enlighten the rest of us.