Supreme Court: Raisin board unconstitutional(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Supreme Court: Raisin board unconstitutional
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-california-raisins-20150623-story.html
22 comments
Why does NPR still require Flash for audio playback in this day and age?
flash cookies are less well known to people. Even the casual "privacy conscious" web user tend to be unaware that flash drop its own flash cookies that don't clear with the browsers "clear cookies" function.
It's hard not to sympathize with the folks who have been saying all along that Sotomayor is an extremist, in light of her views in this case, which was an 8-1 decision.
If you read her dissent, it's hard to characterize as "extreme". Slightly arcane, perhaps, and disagreeing on a fine point of the definition of a per se taking, but not extreme at all and seemingly something that reasonable (and presumably well-informed-enough to be debating that technical definition) people could disagree on.
Meanwhile the case itself is being severely misrepresented in media coverage.
The raisin program, as it had been run, basically had three steps:
1. A committee made up of farmers and others in the raisin business decide on a percentage of that year's crop to set aside.
2. Farmers set aside that percentage of their crop, and pass it to the committee.
3. Any profit left after administrative fees from the sale of those raisins is distributed to the farmers.
The big question was not whether the government lacks the power to run this kind of program, but whether this program is the government taking private property for public use, and (if it is) whether the payment for taking the property has to occur up-front.
The eight Justices in the majority agreed it was taking of private property for public use (Sotomayor disagreed on a technical aspect of the definition, hence her dissent). But those eight did not agree entirely on whether the government would have to pay up-front; five of them said yes, three others said no and that it should go back to a lower court to determine if the raisin growers were entitled to compensation (since the program was meant to, and apparently succeeded at, keeping raising prices higher -- in which case they might not be entitled to any further cash payment).
Meanwhile the case itself is being severely misrepresented in media coverage.
The raisin program, as it had been run, basically had three steps:
1. A committee made up of farmers and others in the raisin business decide on a percentage of that year's crop to set aside.
2. Farmers set aside that percentage of their crop, and pass it to the committee.
3. Any profit left after administrative fees from the sale of those raisins is distributed to the farmers.
The big question was not whether the government lacks the power to run this kind of program, but whether this program is the government taking private property for public use, and (if it is) whether the payment for taking the property has to occur up-front.
The eight Justices in the majority agreed it was taking of private property for public use (Sotomayor disagreed on a technical aspect of the definition, hence her dissent). But those eight did not agree entirely on whether the government would have to pay up-front; five of them said yes, three others said no and that it should go back to a lower court to determine if the raisin growers were entitled to compensation (since the program was meant to, and apparently succeeded at, keeping raising prices higher -- in which case they might not be entitled to any further cash payment).
> disagreeing on a fine point of the definition of a per se taking
While I agree some of her dissent is indeed technical and should not be considered extreme, there are certainly some extreme elements. To wit, from her dissent,
"...insofar as the Hornes wish to sell some raisins in a market regulated by the Government and at a price supported by governmental intervention, the Order requires that they give up the right to sell a portion of those raisins at that price and instead accept disposal of them at a lower price."
I think most reasonable people would not consider that to be ordinary government regulation; forcing farmers to sell at a particular if they wish to participate in the "free" market in fact sounds like certain horror stories you hear about socialist regimes (note: I am not imparting any judgement on President Obama here w.r.t. socialism).
While I agree some of her dissent is indeed technical and should not be considered extreme, there are certainly some extreme elements. To wit, from her dissent,
"...insofar as the Hornes wish to sell some raisins in a market regulated by the Government and at a price supported by governmental intervention, the Order requires that they give up the right to sell a portion of those raisins at that price and instead accept disposal of them at a lower price."
I think most reasonable people would not consider that to be ordinary government regulation; forcing farmers to sell at a particular if they wish to participate in the "free" market in fact sounds like certain horror stories you hear about socialist regimes (note: I am not imparting any judgement on President Obama here w.r.t. socialism).
Economically, if the program exists, the only sensible thing is for it to be mandatory. Otherwise you run into a situation where it's possible for some farmers to get the benefit of the program (higher prices for their crop) without paying for the program (by setting aside some of their crop) and the whole thing collapses.
Also, programs of this nature are old enough that it's really difficult to try to put current interpretations of labels like "socialist" on them; many of the people involved in originally drafting, passing and implementing this stuff would've been, by modern standards, too conservative even for the Tea Party.
(though there is a useful more-recent term to apply here: since the New Deal, farmers and ranchers have essentially been the biggest welfare queens in the United States, to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks, favorable land/water rates and government-run price-fixing programs, and generally the anti-"socialism" forces in our government have no problem with requiring welfare recipients to make sacrifices in return for the benefits, so why not be consistent about it?)
Also, programs of this nature are old enough that it's really difficult to try to put current interpretations of labels like "socialist" on them; many of the people involved in originally drafting, passing and implementing this stuff would've been, by modern standards, too conservative even for the Tea Party.
(though there is a useful more-recent term to apply here: since the New Deal, farmers and ranchers have essentially been the biggest welfare queens in the United States, to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks, favorable land/water rates and government-run price-fixing programs, and generally the anti-"socialism" forces in our government have no problem with requiring welfare recipients to make sacrifices in return for the benefits, so why not be consistent about it?)
I agree, existence must imply the program being mandatory, for exactly the reasons you describe. But perhaps the fact that the justices nearly-unanimously agreed on its unconstitionality means it should not have existed? You have to argue the legality of the program on the merits, not on the basis of "well, if we didn't violate the constitution, the program would not work".
And yeah, I am not trying to pass judgement using the label of socialism, I am trying to draw parallels to what people often decry as one of the evils of socialist states. I understand that these programs were not created in such a context; I certainly do not care about party affiliations or political leanings, only the direct, observable outcomes of the program.
And yeah, I am not trying to pass judgement using the label of socialism, I am trying to draw parallels to what people often decry as one of the evils of socialist states. I understand that these programs were not created in such a context; I certainly do not care about party affiliations or political leanings, only the direct, observable outcomes of the program.
I think it's hard to view in terms of timelessly constitutional or not; the Court's favored interpretations of bits of the Constitution have shifted back and forth widely since the Supreme Court was established.
So I suspect the strongest possible statement is that this is a program most people accepted as constitutional without much controversy at the time of the New Deal, but since then the Court's interpretation (and the political climate in the country, of which the Court is for better or worse a reflection) has shifted.
So I suspect the strongest possible statement is that this is a program most people accepted as constitutional without much controversy at the time of the New Deal, but since then the Court's interpretation (and the political climate in the country, of which the Court is for better or worse a reflection) has shifted.
[deleted]
that would be BS. the new deal was a big push into socialism, programs of the FDR admin. FDR and esp his wife were socialists. Thes type things depressed he economy for years an needed a war to alleviate those problems.
No harder than it is to sympathize with people who say that any of the judges is an extremist. In 2010 alone, 7 of the judges were the lone dissenter at least once:
Breyer - Milner v. Department of Navy Alito - Snyder v. Phelps Sotomayor - United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation Ginsburg - Kentucky v. King Thomas - Pepper v. United States Kennedy - Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A. Scalia - Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A.
Roberts and Kagan are the only justices I haven't found an example of where they were lone dissenters.
Breyer - Milner v. Department of Navy Alito - Snyder v. Phelps Sotomayor - United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation Ginsburg - Kentucky v. King Thomas - Pepper v. United States Kennedy - Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A. Scalia - Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A.
Roberts and Kagan are the only justices I haven't found an example of where they were lone dissenters.
What is extremist about voting in favor of the status quo?
But more importantly, what's wrong with a justice being the lone decenter? Don't we want justices who vote on the merits of the case alone? What's the value in having nine justices who all think a like and vote the same way? I think our supreme court should reflect the values and priorities of all americans.
Seems to me like you just don't like Sotomayor. Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but why don't you come up with criticisms more constructive than calling her "extremist," because you are basically just encouraging group think.
But more importantly, what's wrong with a justice being the lone decenter? Don't we want justices who vote on the merits of the case alone? What's the value in having nine justices who all think a like and vote the same way? I think our supreme court should reflect the values and priorities of all americans.
Seems to me like you just don't like Sotomayor. Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but why don't you come up with criticisms more constructive than calling her "extremist," because you are basically just encouraging group think.
They talk about impact for other government seizure powers- could this have an effect on that awful Civil Forfeiture practise?
Probably not, but it might have an effect on compensation in eminent domain cases.
Audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-275
mp3: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-275.mp3
@ about 17:30 a discussion begins about the difference between taking records and taking other things. The defendant's lawyer argued that taking the raisins is a taking of property and taking records (in most cases) is not. He kinda had to argue that because he was pressed. Maybe it's a positive sign that the court was asking about it in the context of this decision. If nothing else, the intrinsic privacy of information in itself has value.
The prosecution crashes and burns off the line @ 25:00 the wreck continues, 48:18 ha.
mp3: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-275.mp3
@ about 17:30 a discussion begins about the difference between taking records and taking other things. The defendant's lawyer argued that taking the raisins is a taking of property and taking records (in most cases) is not. He kinda had to argue that because he was pressed. Maybe it's a positive sign that the court was asking about it in the context of this decision. If nothing else, the intrinsic privacy of information in itself has value.
The prosecution crashes and burns off the line @ 25:00 the wreck continues, 48:18 ha.
I love listening to the oral arguments, there's a lot of absurd arguments in a lot of these. Helps to illuminate a lot of rulings that seem out of touch at first glance.
I bet some kind of indecent person will complain that patent expiry is government seizure of property. I mean, it's taking property and giving it to everyone. Come to think of it, it can actually sound like internationalist communism if you put it the right way. I expect someone will.
But yeah, this particular piece of regulation seems to have outlived its purpose.
But yeah, this particular piece of regulation seems to have outlived its purpose.
There's no good argument to own an idea forever.
It's funny how that logic does apply to patents, but not to Disney and Mickey Mouse.
Oh, it applies to Disney and Mickey Mouse, it's unfortunately just not applied to them.
Dirty communist hippie, you! /s
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/22/416538...
Decision
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-275
Previous discussion on HN
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5855890
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5476048