Most would rather submit than fight. Imagine having a large fine over your head? Do you have the balls to take the government to the mat?
Actually some of FDR’s stuff was found unconstitutional at the time and he did clash with SCOTUS. So it’s not that way out of a question to suggest even more of it was/is unconstitutional.
Sure. People do it all the time.
It just perplexes me that this particular thing took this long. I’m thinking either there was a benefit to it that no longer exists, or the application for review was consistently turned down.
It was an 8-1 decision so I speculate that we can eliminate any underlying political or ideological reasons.
We got pics of Scalia and Thomas in their gay love nest. Don’t ask to see them. Trust me, you don’t want to see them…
Farmers traditionally don’t have a lot of money to spare on lawyers. They didn’t say anything about it because they were too busy growing & selling raisins. This guy ended up making the news not because he took them to court, but because he just stopped giving them his raisins. They took him to court, because they’re a government agency, and spending taxpayer’s dollars to sue taxpayers to give them more free stuff is what they’re all about.
Until now.
Geez, if they’re still riled up about Roosevelt, wonder how long it’ll take them to forgive Bill ?
FDR did put 150,000 citizens in concentration camps. He tried to load the SCOTUS. Maybe we should all be riled about the imperial nature of his presidency while recognizing he also did many good things.
Mckinley did a lot of good for the country. He has little to be forgiven for.
My question on this topic is - okay, the “reserve” raisins were taken “without compensation.” Knowing how farming works in the subsidy/protection era… what *other *subsidies, support, buyouts etc. did the raisin farmers get from da USG?
Probably nothing. A goal of the Roosevelt agricultural policy was to reduce surpluses thus raising prices.
Here is an article from the Cato Institute (I know) that explains some of the backstory
A lot of farm subsidies and so forth have arisen since FDR. And no one fights for their [del]welfare check[/del] crop subsidy harder than a farmer who makes more from his fallow fields than his planted ones.
Give that junkee his first fix free…
Ask the Filipinos about that.
I don’t really have a problem with the outcome of this case, although I disagree with the legal reasoning the majority used to get there. And I think Sotomayor’s dissent is more or less correct in the flaws she points out in the majority’s legal reasoning, but I don’t agree with her outcome either. But that’s neither here or there, since I’m not on the Supreme Court.
But, I will point out that this overall issue is a bit more complex than is being laid out in this thread. If the government seizes your property in its entirety, that’s a pretty easy call for me and I’d say you get fair market value.
But when the government seizes only part of your property rights, that’s not such an easy call. Supposing the government doesn’t seize your property, but they tell you that you can never build anything on the property ever, for say, environmental reasons. What sort of compensation are you entitled to? What if the government says they won’t approve your new development unless you give them a free easement on your property? What if the government says that you have to let the cable company run a line across your property (and there’s no existing easement)? There’s case law on all these situations, and I can point you to the case law to answer these questions, but if we step back, these aren’t easy questions to answer. It’s pretty easy to look at a piece of property as a whole and determine it’s fair market value, but when we start looking at pieces of property rights, fair market value determinations aren’t that clear-cut.
In this case, the government didn’t technically seize all the property rights from the owners of the raisins, although I’d say in practice, they effectively did, which is why I don’t really have a problem with the outcome. But I think there’s a bit more complexity here than is apparent on the surface.
As for the actual raisin policy, I don’t know enough about agricultural markets to know if this policy is worthwhile or not. But if oil companies can be compensated for contributing to the strategic oil reserve, I don’t really see why farmers can’t be compensated for contributing to the strategic raisin reserve.*
- It’s not really a strategic raisin reserve. That’s a bit a of a joke.
Then why did Obama take his mountain away? :mad:
Well, he never played with it or took care of it!
Probably so; one of the more interesting analyses I heard of agricultural subsidies paid to keep fields fallow, is that if we let farmers produce to their heart’s content, that US wheat and corn would totally flood the world markets, and drive down prices so low that foreign producers would be driven out of business, and so would a whole lot of domestic ones, leaving only the huge ones who could still make money through economies of scale. So the government pays our farmers to NOT farm, in order to put an artificial supply restriction in place and to drive prices up to where everyone can make a little money on the deal. I’d always assumed it was some kind of encouragement for crop rotation or something like that, prior to that particular grad school lecture.
I agree with the crop rotation/preservation of soil argument. I would argue that farmers would never max produce because it would bankrupt them all. Does any industry max produce? Apple maybe. We have lost so much of our best farmland to development…(especially here in SoCal and especially Orange County). We are increasingly dependant on fossil feul to get food to people. I dread when the big earthquake will hit California because the panic and hunger and thirst will be massive.