The Gov't is taking my raisins!

Well not my raisins, but the Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case challenging the constitutionality of a government program that allows a government agency called the "Raisin Administrative Committee" to require raisin growers to hand over some of their crop to the committee which then resells them out of market or donates them to charities, federal agencies or foreign governments, with the money made from these sales used to fund the committee and excess profits returned to the raisin growers.

The government maintains that this practice allows government to stabilize the price of raisins but manipulating the supply which benefits raisin farmers by keeping the prices from raisins from getting too low (and thus it probably hurts consumers).

The two farmers - Marvin and Laura Horne - from California are suing saying this practice goes against the Constitution because it allows the government to take private property without just compensation. The Horne's tried to get around this requirement by setting up their own packaging program but they were caught and fined a whopping $695,000. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, but that court has a reputation for being liberal and getting overturned by the Supremes often. Judging by their comments during oral arguments the Supreme Court Judges seemed skeptical of the government's arguments:

Justice Antonin Scalia compared it to old-style Russian central planning, while Justice Elena Kagan called it a "weird historical anomaly."

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that most other farm regulatory programs try to limit how much of a crop farmers can grow, as opposed to taking away produce already harvested.

"This is different because you come up with the truck and you get the shovels and you take their raisins, probably in the dark of night," Roberts said to laughter.

I'd hate to prune up the subject but it looks like their hopes are all dried out.

Let the market free.

It sounds kind of silly. A Supreme Court case over raisins.

Lol, rednecks never mind your guns, it's your raisins that the feds are after. "That darn Obummer, he's stealing my raisins".

@Master_Live: That's what I think too. From what I understand most economists believe these government programs (which are usually subsidies not to grow more than a certain amount of crops, not actually taking crops) are bad for the economy as a whole: sure they help the farmers sell their crops at a higher price, but that means consumers pay more and there is less food available.

@whipassmt: where do you even live?

In The United States

@whipassmt: huh I thought you lived in another country after you said "LOL nevermind you rednecks"

well let's see.

if your house is in the way of a road they can knock it down and build over it, if you don't want to get shot up in a war they can draft you give you 8 weeks of half assed training and toss you in a foxhole.

so based on those precedents guess what they can do with your dried fruit?

What this case should make obvious is that nothing is off limits to the government. Raisins or firearms is irrelevant because the point is still true.

I thought it was established on OT a looooong time ago that raisins are only good for feeding the homeless.

@thegerg: You're welcome.

Good one.

I was joking because rednecks are often stereotyped as being paranoid about the government taking away their guns.

Yep. They just wanna take, take, take. And its not just the feds - the feds are the most powerful of course - but some of the states are even more intrusive, like Illinois and California and D.C. trying to trample on conscience rights.

This reminds me of something I heard on a TV show called QI, that the US has a sole claim on all guano basically wherever there is a giant pile of bat shit the US can claim it. Though not sure if it's still in effect. It's one of those weird laws that kinda show up sometimes. There was one in UK not too long ago that allowed British people to own slaves, it was removed a couple of years ago.

There were tons of these agriculture policies enacted after WWII in order to prevent a crash in the agriculture market. Kagan was right to call it a weird historical anomaly. Most of them no longer exist, and this particular one has outlived it's usefulness as well.

the court may uphold the ruling but i don't think they have the grapes

guano owner: "The governor is taking my shit"

raisin farmer: "mine too!"

guano owner: "no, you don't understand they are taking my shit - literally!"