Half your raisins are belong to us

[boomerang]

Sotomayor was the outlier in the 8-1 decision.

Getting free raisins maybe?

 

[PokerGuy]

Sotomayor was the outlier in the 8-1 decision.

Idiots gonna idiot. 😉

 

[werepossum]

Sotomayor was the outlier in the 8-1 decision.

Because . . .

Getting free raisins maybe?

Nah. Not being a raisin, she was just insulted they weren't including nuts.

 

[Exterous]

I can see why these laws exist. So that the industry doesn't fail in cycles as the crop yields change from year to year. It create stability in the system.

I haven't had a chance to look it up but IIRC this system was created to bridge prevent farmers from going out of business during a terrible or string of terrible years as well as provide a smoother price expectation for the consumer. There might be a better way to do it but I would be cautious about about quickly throwing anything together because: emotions

 

[UberNeuman]

Seems like a case of sour grapes.

 

[waggy]

Seems like a case of sour grapes.

BOOOO! BOOOOO!

/throws tomatoes at uberNeuman

 

[DrPizza]

So... raisins are going to be cheaper soon?

Or rather, raisins will be cheaper in years where they have a huge yield, and I'll buy raisins. And more expensive in years where there aren't as many raisins, and I figure, "who needs raisins anyway?" Thus, demand will drop, resulting in prices really not going up that much.

 

[werepossum]

BOOOO! BOOOOO!

/throws tomatoes at uberNeuman

Hey, I laughed out loud.

 

[waggy]

Hey, I laughed out loud.

so did I. don't tell him though :whiste:

 

[werepossum]

so did I. don't tell him though :whiste:

lol It'll be our secret.

 

[Subyman]

I haven't had a chance to look it up but IIRC this system was created to bridge prevent farmers from going out of business during a terrible or string of terrible years as well as provide a smoother price expectation for the consumer. There might be a better way to do it but I would be cautious about about quickly throwing anything together because: emotions

The laws still have to play within the bounds of the constitution. The justification seems good and the goal is right, but how they get there and the nuance of the policy seems questionable. Especially with allegations of seizure without compensation. I would be curious to know if the farmer has the option to sell internationally instead of giving the government the mandated portion.

 

[Texashiker]

High court rules

Seems obamas appointed justice has no issue with the government taking your property without compensation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only dissenter.

She said the program did not deprive the Hornes of all property rights, it just limited the amount of potential income they could earn from it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

doesn't the government buy surplus goods from other industries (milk comes to mind)?

 

[1prophet]

There is no good case for the government to be expropriating raisin crops.

This,

and

This,

Court got it absolutely right (for once), these kinds of laws should never have been allowed to exist at all. Simply taking legal property that belongs to someone without compensation and saying "trust me, it's for your own good" is BS. Doesn't matter if some (or even most) of the producers supported it, nor does it matter if it was a net overall benefit to someone or not. It should have been tossed right off the bat because it amounts to government confiscating private property without compensation. Took far too long, but at least now we got to the right conclusion.

What is truly amazing is how the phony liberals where trying to justify this with the old "we are doing it for your own good" or demonizing the guy that is trying to fight for his rights within the law.

 

[PokerGuy]

What is truly amazing is how the phony liberals where trying to justify this with the old "we are doing it for your own good" or demonizing the guy that is trying to fight for his rights within the law.

Exactly, perfect example:

Yet the vast majority of raisin growers support it:

I agree it sounds like a strange law that should probably be reviewed by Congress. It also sounds like Horne is a bullheaded ass who doesn't play well with others, and is perhaps greedy in seeking special treatment at the expense of others in his industry. I'd be curious to hear his feelings about activist judges legislating from the bench ... when it doesn't benefit him.

Yeah, how dare he not be OK with someone else (government) just taking his property without any recourse! He wants his stuff to be his, clearly he's greedy and "seeking special treatment", he's just a bullheaded ass 🙄

Very typical of the leftist "government über alles!" mentality.

 

[Bowfinger]

Exactly, perfect example:



Yeah, how dare he not be OK with someone else (government) just taking his property without any recourse! He wants his stuff to be his, clearly he's greedy and "seeking special treatment", he's just a bullheaded ass 🙄

Very typical of the leftist "government über alles!" mentality.

😀

Let the butt-hurt flow, little one. Reading is so hard.

 

[PokerGuy]

😀

Let the butt-hurt flow, little one. Reading is so hard.

lol, butt-hurt? Not here. I just re-posted your drivel to illustrate 1prohpet's point. Pretty typical, really. From agreeing with IRS abuse of citizens to simply stealing someone's property with no recourse, at least you're consistent :biggrin:

 

[dank69]

lol, butt-hurt? Not here. I just re-posted your drivel to illustrate 1prohpet's point. Pretty typical, really. From agreeing with IRS abuse of citizens to simply stealing someone's property with no recourse, at least you're consistent :biggrin:

Typically, when someone breaks the law the government applies punishment according to how the law is written. It seems like the raisin growers all agreed that they wanted this law. This one guy didn't want to play by long established rules. Let's not pretend that the government was coming in all willy-nilly and taking shit from people that didn't deserve it. This guy knew the law and deliberately broke it knowing that the consequences would be confiscation. I imagine the law will be rewritten shortly to change the punishment into a fine instead.

 

[Bowfinger]

lol, butt-hurt? Not here. I just re-posted your drivel to illustrate 1prohpet's point. Pretty typical, really. From agreeing with IRS abuse of citizens to simply stealing someone's property with no recourse, at least you're consistent :biggrin:

I'm not sure if you're deliberately lying or merely functionally illiterate. Either way you're wrong. In other news, water is wet.

PS. I've heard good things about Preparation H. Costco probably sells it in drums.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm not sure if you're deliberately lying or merely functionally illiterate.

Hey, I just quoted your posts. Don't blame me for your idiotic posts 😉

PS. I've heard good things about Preparation H. Costco probably sells it in drums.

They only sell it that way in your costco because you shop there. Most other people don't have that kind of need. To each his own though!

 

[glenn1]

Exactly, perfect example:

Yeah, how dare he not be OK with someone else (government) just taking his property without any recourse! He wants his stuff to be his, clearly he's greedy and "seeking special treatment", he's just a bullheaded ass 🙄

Very typical of the leftist "government über alles!" mentality.

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

 

[Exterous]

The laws still have to play within the bounds of the constitution. The justification seems good and the goal is right, but how they get there and the nuance of the policy seems questionable. Especially with allegations of seizure without compensation.

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:

A 1949 marketing order allowed farmers to form a committee that decides how much of the raisin crop handlers must turn over to the government each year.

 

[cabri]

Typically, when someone breaks the law the government applies punishment according to how the law is written. It seems like the raisin growers all agreed that they wanted this law. This one guy didn't want to play by long established rules. Let's not pretend that the government was coming in all willy-nilly and taking shit from people that didn't deserve it. This guy knew the law and deliberately broke it knowing that the consequences would be confiscation. I imagine the law will be rewritten shortly to change the punishment into a fine instead.

While he may have deliberately broke the law; he also then challenged the law as invalid and was proved correct.

 

[Bowfinger]

Hey, I just quoted your posts. Don't blame me for your idiotic posts 😉

You did not just quote me, you misrepresented my positions to give yourself a phony argument to attack. Typical for you. (Challenging one's actual position is much harder, requiring thought and actual intelligence instead of rage and blind partisan dogma.)

They only sell it that way in your costco because you shop there. Most other people don't have that kind of need. To each his own though!

Weaksauce. You comebacks are as limp as your arguments.

 

[PokerGuy]

Typically, when someone breaks the law the government applies punishment according to how the law is written. It seems like the raisin growers all agreed that they wanted this law.

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).

This one guy didn't want to play by long established rules.

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.

This guy knew the law and deliberately broke it knowing that the consequences would be confiscation.

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 imagine the law will be rewritten shortly to change the punishment into a fine instead.

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).