Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   According to the 9th Circuit Court, it's perfectly alright if the government takes half your crop and gives you nothing in return because they're trying to help you   (naturalresourcereport.com) divider line 190
    More: Asinine, California Raisins, Supreme Court, American farmers, lena horne, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Justice Elena Kagan, United States courts of appeals, U.S. Department of Agriculture  
•       •       •

5090 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2014 at 8:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-27 05:14:41 PM  
This is the same raisins case the the government lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court last year
 
2014-06-27 05:22:13 PM  

ArkAngel: This is the same raisins case the the government lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court last year


*Swing* and a miss..no wait...foul tip.

The ruling last year was that the case can proceed. That's all.
 
2014-06-27 05:43:31 PM  
Why do I anticipate that there more be more about this case than subby let's on?
 
2014-06-27 05:59:12 PM  
Just file for a farm subsidy so thr government can give you a bunch of money to not grow anything.
 
2014-06-27 07:50:45 PM  
Something something "raisin d'etre."

/got nothin
 
2014-06-27 08:15:28 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: Why do I anticipate that there more be more about this case than subby let's on?


In this case, a government board demands a significant amount of the raisin crop from every grower in the country in order to ensure prices stay high. They put them in storage for a few years, then sell them overseas or to school lunch programs, in both cases for much smaller amounts that standard domestic sales. The government is supposed to return the money from the sales to the growers, but in recent years there has been very little or nothing left after program expenses.

The last year the plaintiff gave his raisins to the program, the government took 47% of his entire crop and there was no reimbursement from the program. After that he stopped giving up his raisins. Last year, SCOTUS overruled the 9th Circuit and stated that he has the right to challenge the program without paying huge fines or giving up his raisins. Just last month, the 9th Circuit said that the government can demand his raisins because this is closely related to the government's goal of controlling raisin prices.
 
2014-06-27 08:18:54 PM  
After reading the article, I had two thoughts:

1) Even if the government does have power to do this, its unclear why its not a takings case which deserves compensation. I don't see how having a purpose of stabilizing prices is somehow a loophole to the takings clause.

2) The arguments of the justices that the law was old and out of date is just entirely irrelevant. It's the job of the legislature to repeal laws, not judges to strike them down simply out of age.
 
2014-06-27 08:50:12 PM  
If I were a farmer, and the government tried to take so much as a single grain from me without compensation, I'd burn my entire crop and move to a different country.

fark.
That.
Bullshiat.
 
2014-06-27 08:51:53 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer, and the government tried to take so much as a single grain from me without compensation, I'd burn my entire crop and move to a different country.


ih1.redbubble.net
 
2014-06-27 08:56:38 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer,...


I'd farmer in the morning
I'd farmer in the evening
all over this land.

I'D FARMER OUT WARNING
I'D FARMER OUT DANGER
I'D FARMER OUT BETWEEN
MY SISTERS AND MY BROTHERS
ALL OVER THIS LAND!

Everybody now!
 
2014-06-27 08:56:52 PM  
The government does crap like this all of the time. They pay farmers to not plant crops, or to only plant a fraction of what they can, so the price will stay high.

The problem can be, if you got your seed from Monsanto, the seed can only be planted that year; none of the seed can be held back for any purpose. If they find out that you planted this year's crop with ANY of last year's seed; they will sue you into oblivion.
 
2014-06-27 08:57:41 PM  
I always wondered when Wickard v. Filburn was going to finally get overturned. I don't know if this is a true Wickard case, but on a quick reading, it should be.
 
2014-06-27 08:57:52 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer, and the government tried to take so much as a single grain from me without compensation, I'd burn my entire crop and move to a different country.

fark.
That.
Bullshiat.


Would you be doing the same if the government did nothing and the glut of supply caused your entire crop to be essentially worthless?
 
2014-06-27 08:58:54 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer, and the government tried to take so much as a single grain from me without compensation, I'd burn my entire crop and move to a different country.

fark.
That.
Bullshiat.


Good luck getting out of Guantanamo Bay, ya damn commie.

/ seriously, they'd probably arrest you and charge you with destruction of property
 
2014-06-27 08:59:58 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer


and you were a lady
would you marry me anyway?
would you have my baby?
 
2014-06-27 09:00:09 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer,...

I'd farmer in the morning
I'd farmer in the evening
all over this land.

I'D FARMER OUT WARNING
I'D FARMER OUT DANGER
I'D FARMER OUT BETWEEN
MY SISTERS AND MY BROTHERS
ALL OVER THIS LAND!

Everybody now!

 
2014-06-27 09:00:13 PM  
Our government is trying to keep some stability in the marketplace. Our economic future is just as important as our present economy. We should indeed compensate these farmers but we need to keep on doing this.
 
2014-06-27 09:01:15 PM  
It's either this or I have to go take apart one stupid IKEA bed and assemble another because my wife went shopping today.  Shut up, drink and put up with my nonsense, Fark.  I hate IKEA.
 
2014-06-27 09:01:58 PM  
♫ I know that a farmer ain't s'posed to cry,
but these tears I can't hold inside.
Losin' crops would end my life you see,
cause the money means that much to me... ♫
 
2014-06-27 09:02:53 PM  
But maybe selling more raisins at a lower price versus selling less fewer raisins at a higher price will yield the same total so there is no monetary loss to the farmer.
 
2014-06-27 09:04:13 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer


but then again, no
or a man who makes potions in the travelling show
I know it's not much, but it's the best I can do
My gift is my song, and this one's for you
 
2014-06-27 09:05:05 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer, and the government tried to take so much as a single grain from me without compensation, I'd burn my entire crop and move to a different country.

fark.
That.
Bullshiat.


If you beloved that, you'd have left the country after you saw taxes taken out of a paycheck

Oh wait. You've never had a job. You don't know about "taxes."
 
2014-06-27 09:05:14 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer, and the government tried to take so much as a single grain from me without compensation, I'd burn my entire crop and move to a different country.

fark.
That.
Bullshiat.


But in a way, aren't they compensating you by having a system in place that controls the price of your crop?

Without going into the rightness/wrongness of the entire situation, this is technically a cartel, like OPEC. Or to give a more direct analogy, it's like what the Canukistanians do with Maple Syrup.

You see in Canada, the Maple Syrup growers there take a portion of all of their yearly yield and hand hand it over to a cartel that stores it and over time releases it for sale as a way to control (inflate?) the price of syrup. This essentially ensure that the growers (do you grow syrup or harvest it? harvest probably) have a reliable yearly profit when both the market is gorged or lean.

Honestly, from reading the complaint - it's not that the government is taking raisins from him that's the issue, it's that they're taking them for the cartel and then not being able to return a profit over the last few years, because in this kind of system, so long as everyone is getting paid, it's a great way to make money.
 
2014-06-27 09:05:27 PM  
 
2014-06-27 09:06:32 PM  

iheartscotch: The problem can be, if you got your seed from Monsanto, the seed can only be planted that year; none of the seed can be held back for any purpose. If they find out that you planted this year's crop with ANY of last year's seed; they will sue you into oblivion.


That's not true.

What you can't do is plant seed you bought from Monsanto, let those crops produce a new generation of seeds, and then plant THOSE seeds in the future.  You can hold seeds you bought directly from them for as long as you wish.

Of course, since this article is about grapes, that's totally irrelevant anyway.
 
2014-06-27 09:09:20 PM  

frodokb: The guy is kind of a jerk.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/09/210490760/the-raisin-outla w- of-kerman-california


So he's like the Cliven Bundy of Raisins. He benefits from the higher prices created by the Raisin Administration, but then sells all of his raisins in direct contravention of it. He's got his, fark everyone else.
 
2014-06-27 09:10:44 PM  
Nothing can redeem this.

rhymeswithnerdy.com
 
2014-06-27 09:12:05 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer


Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum
If I were a farming man
I wouldn't have to work hard
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum
If I were a biddy farmer man
Idle-diddle-daidle farmer man
 
2014-06-27 09:14:17 PM  
Not "nothing" - you get the opportunity to keep forming that land...

/DNRTFA
 
2014-06-27 09:16:12 PM  

DamnYankees: After reading the article, I had two thoughts:

1) Even if the government does have power to do this, its unclear why its not a takings case which deserves compensation. I don't see how having a purpose of stabilizing prices is somehow a loophole to the takings clause.

2) The arguments of the justices that the law was old and out of date is just entirely irrelevant. It's the job of the legislature to repeal laws, not judges to strike them down simply out of age.


They struck down part of the CRA because too many Representatives and Senators voted for it AND it was old. So, they clearly believe they're the ones to make that call. That aside, aren't they making this call based on the right to regulate trade - which doesn't have a compensation clause - because fark you that's why?
 
2014-06-27 09:16:54 PM  

calufrax: Not "nothing" - you get the opportunity to keep forming that land...

/DNRTFA


That's what potters do, they take the clay from the land and form it.
 
2014-06-27 09:19:43 PM  
Sum Dum Gai:
What you can't do is plant seed you bought from Monsanto, let those crops produce a new generation of seeds, and then plant THOSE seeds in the future.  You can hold seeds you bought directly from them for as long as you wish.

Or, if your neighbor plants Monsanto seed, and their plants cross pollinate with your non-Monsanto plants, you can no longer use new generations of your seeds
 
2014-06-27 09:23:27 PM  

ghare: Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer, and the government tried to take so much as a single grain from me without compensation, I'd burn my entire crop and move to a different country.

fark.
That.
Bullshiat.

If you beloved that, you'd have left the country after you saw taxes taken out of a paycheck

Oh wait. You've never had a job. You don't know about "taxes."


Your my favorite so far. :)
 
2014-06-27 09:24:33 PM  
We be planting lupines instead of raisins next year. Those stories about Robin Hood are untrue.
 
2014-06-27 09:26:09 PM  
A ruling by the 9th is the best news the losing side could ask for. They're overturned more than they're upheld.
 
2014-06-27 09:30:53 PM  

jjorsett: A ruling by the 9th is the best news the losing side could ask for. They're overturned more than they're upheld.


There is a legal joke that the Supreme Court has a stamp for all the other Circuit Courts that says "Received on [date]" for when they get an appeal; the one for the 9th says "Received on [date] REVERSED ON [date]" so they can just send it straight back.
 
2014-06-27 09:32:22 PM  
Justice Antonin Scalia...said in oral arguments in March 2013 that the USDA in effect offers farmers a choice: "Your raisins or your life."

Good to know that even on the rare occasions that he's on the right side of things, Scalia can still manage to think of something idiotic to say.
 
2014-06-27 09:33:03 PM  

BitwiseShift: We be planting lupines instead of raisins next year. Those stories about Robin Hood are untrue.


Stupid biatch.
 
2014-06-27 09:33:47 PM  

0x1a4: Sum Dum Gai:
What you can't do is plant seed you bought from Monsanto, let those crops produce a new generation of seeds, and then plant THOSE seeds in the future.  You can hold seeds you bought directly from them for as long as you wish.

Or, if your neighbor plants Monsanto seed, and their plants cross pollinate with your non-Monsanto plants, you can no longer use new generations of your seeds



Monsanto has never once taken any legal action for accidental cross-pollination of its seeds, and their stated position is that they never will.

The facts of the famous case in Canada are often misrepresented.  That farmer initially had a small amount of Roundup-resistant crop in his field, which itself was fine (as long as it was accidental, as he claimed, and not intentional).  After that point, though, the farmer deliberately killed off the rest of his crops with Roundup in order to isolate just the small volume of resistant crop, in order to propagate that in the future.  By doing this more than once, he reached about 97% Roundup-resistant crop in his field.

It was the deliberate action of isolating and propagating only the Roundup-resistant crops that got him in trouble.  The fact that he killed off most of his crop casts some doubts on how "accidental" it actually was to find these crops in his field.
 
2014-06-27 09:38:51 PM  

DamnYankees: 2) The arguments of the justices that the law was old and out of date is just entirely irrelevant. It's the job of the legislature to repeal laws, not judges to strike them down simply out of age.


Yes and no.  Most Constitutional cases end up being a balancing test, between the right being infringed and the reason for doing so.  If time has caused either the infringment to increase or the need for doing so to decrease, it could change the constitutionality of the law.  In that case it may be very much the job of judges to strike it down.
 
2014-06-27 09:41:40 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer, and the government tried to take so much as a single grain from me without compensation, I'd burn my entire crop and move to a different country.

fark.
That.
Bullshiat.


Try china. Farmers do well there.
 
2014-06-27 09:43:58 PM  
Just try to do away with the liberal federal farm subsidy programs.

Oh, yeah, baby.

I bet there's several gallons of crocodile tears in that article.
 
2014-06-27 09:46:13 PM  

DamnYankees: It's the job of the legislature to repeal laws, not judges to strike them down simply out of age.


You didn't read the SCOTUS decision after they disemboweled the Voting Rights Act, did you?
 
2014-06-27 09:46:34 PM  

0x1a4: Sum Dum Gai:
What you can't do is plant seed you bought from Monsanto, let those crops produce a new generation of seeds, and then plant THOSE seeds in the future.  You can hold seeds you bought directly from them for as long as you wish.

Or, if your neighbor plants Monsanto seed, and their plants cross pollinate with your non-Monsanto plants, you can no longer use new generations of your seeds


Sounds great, except for the fact that Monsanto has never taken action against any former with accidental cross-pollination.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths -o f-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Dat google, man.
 
2014-06-27 09:46:47 PM  

yakmans_dad: Just try to do away with the liberal federal farm subsidy programs.

Oh, yeah, baby.

I bet there's several gallons of crocodile tears in that article.


They'd be happy to get rid of parts of it.
 
2014-06-27 09:48:29 PM  
The Ninth Circuit is the craziest bunch of robe-wearing mutherfarkers ever assembled.  They probably use a Ouija board to make their decisions in recess.
 
2014-06-27 09:49:33 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Ego edo infantia cattus: If I were a farmer, and the government tried to take so much as a single grain from me without compensation, I'd burn my entire crop and move to a different country.

fark.
That.
Bullshiat.

Would you be doing the same if the government did nothing and the glut of supply caused your entire crop to be essentially worthless?


Would you still be asking hypothetical if I told you that you're in the Matrix?
 
2014-06-27 09:51:18 PM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: Your my favorite so far. :)


I sang to you!  God, this is so unfair.
 
2014-06-27 09:54:54 PM  

IsThatYourFinalAnswer: 0x1a4: Sum Dum Gai:
What you can't do is plant seed you bought from Monsanto, let those crops produce a new generation of seeds, and then plant THOSE seeds in the future.  You can hold seeds you bought directly from them for as long as you wish.

Or, if your neighbor plants Monsanto seed, and their plants cross pollinate with your non-Monsanto plants, you can no longer use new generations of your seeds

Sounds great, except for the fact that Monsanto has never taken action against any former with accidental cross-pollination.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths -o f-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Dat google, man.


Even better: They can't sue for that reason.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/06/12/190977225/court-to-monsan t o-you-said-you-wont-sue-so-you-cant
 
2014-06-27 09:56:21 PM  

sendtodave: yakmans_dad: Just try to do away with the liberal federal farm subsidy programs.

Oh, yeah, baby.

I bet there's several gallons of crocodile tears in that article.

They'd be happy to get rid of parts of it.


Sure. The part that says you can't try end runs around it when it suits you.
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report