由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
USANews版 - 高院支持加州农民打赢raisin的官司
相关主题
Texas好样的2010年法庭9名大法官当选的情况
强烈推荐:大選決定未來大法官動向!研究了一下fisher vs. UT的argument
大选杂谈:没决定选谁的看看,已经决定的就算了 (转载)非法移民当然可以投票 见Evenwel-Abbott
现在加州大学的录取原则 (转载)七国禁令可能上高院
Supreme Court will hear new challenge to affirmative action支持民主党的看看AA对亚裔大学录取的影响吧
这次AA恐怕保不住了Ginsburg不出席trump的国会演讲
Jan 25,高院案子再一桩川普胜了!美最高法院裁决支持移民限制令
共和党说大选后再任命大法官Ginsburg可能活不过明年
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: raisin话题: program话题: crops话题: farmers话题: hornes
进入USANews版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
l****z
发帖数: 29846
1
High court strikes down raisin program as unconstitutional
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program
that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce
supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said forcing raisin growers to give up part
of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of
private property.
The court sided with California farmers Marvin and Laura Horne, who claimed
they were losing money under a 1940s-era program they call outdated and
ineffective. They were fined $695,000 for trying to get around the program.
A federal appeals court said the program was acceptable because the farmers
benefited from higher market prices and didn't lose the entire value of
their crop.
But their cause had won wide support from conservative groups opposed to
government action that infringes on private property rights. Writing for the
court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay "just
compensation" when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away.
Roberts rejected the government's argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose
to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling
different crops if they don't like it.
"'Let them sell wine' is probably not much more comforting to the raisin
growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history,"
Roberts said. "Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated."
Justice Stephen Breyer agreed that the Hornes were entitled to be properly
paid for their crops, but he wrote separately to say that the case should be
sent back to a lower court to decide whether they would have been owed any
money if they had actually complied with the program rules.
Breyer's separate opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Elena Kagan.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only dissenter. She said the program did not
deprive the Hornes of all their property rights; it just limited the amount
of potential income they could earn from it.
The program was authorized under a 1937 law that allows the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to keep prices for raisins and other crops steady by helping
to manage supply. A 1949 marketing order allowed farmers to form a Raisin
Administrative Committee that would decide how much of the raisin crop
handlers must turn over to the government each year.
These raisins would be placed into a reserve pool to be sold outside the
open market, used for the school lunch program, or given away to charities
and foreign governments. Any profits from these reserve sales would go
toward funding the committee and anything left over went back to the farmers.
The Hornes refused to participate in the program in 2003 and 2004, when
raisin production far exceeded the expected demand. They tried to get around
the regulations by packaging crops on their own instead of going through a
middleman. But the department fined them for violating the rules.
Raisin handlers, who dry the grapes until they become raisins and then
package them, were required to give up 47 percent of their crop in 2003
season, but received far less than their costs of production. Farmers gave
up 30 percent of the crop in 2004 and were paid nothing.
Raisin prices have been relatively stable recently and the committee has not
ordered farmers to put crops in reserve since 2010.
Only a small number of other crops are regulated in the same way, though
federal officials say most programs are not active.
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/high-court-strikes-down-raisin-program-unconstitutional
T*********I
发帖数: 10729
2
8-1.
SOTOMAYOR大法官太左了。
b*****e
发帖数: 53215
3
这女劳模看样子就不像好人

【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 8-1.
: SOTOMAYOR大法官太左了。

f**********n
发帖数: 29853
4
she got this job because of Obama.

【在 b*****e 的大作中提到】
: 这女劳模看样子就不像好人
S**C
发帖数: 2964
5
Yes it is indeed unbelievable.
It is also unbelievable that the Congress did not repeal that law after
nearly 80 years. I cannot decide which one is more astonishing and sad.

【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 8-1.
: SOTOMAYOR大法官太左了。

l****z
发帖数: 29846
6
High court strikes down raisin program as unconstitutional
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program
that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce
supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said forcing raisin growers to give up part
of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of
private property.
The court sided with California farmers Marvin and Laura Horne, who claimed
they were losing money under a 1940s-era program they call outdated and
ineffective. They were fined $695,000 for trying to get around the program.
A federal appeals court said the program was acceptable because the farmers
benefited from higher market prices and didn't lose the entire value of
their crop.
But their cause had won wide support from conservative groups opposed to
government action that infringes on private property rights. Writing for the
court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay "just
compensation" when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away.
Roberts rejected the government's argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose
to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling
different crops if they don't like it.
"'Let them sell wine' is probably not much more comforting to the raisin
growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history,"
Roberts said. "Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated."
Justice Stephen Breyer agreed that the Hornes were entitled to be properly
paid for their crops, but he wrote separately to say that the case should be
sent back to a lower court to decide whether they would have been owed any
money if they had actually complied with the program rules.
Breyer's separate opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Elena Kagan.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only dissenter. She said the program did not
deprive the Hornes of all their property rights; it just limited the amount
of potential income they could earn from it.
The program was authorized under a 1937 law that allows the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to keep prices for raisins and other crops steady by helping
to manage supply. A 1949 marketing order allowed farmers to form a Raisin
Administrative Committee that would decide how much of the raisin crop
handlers must turn over to the government each year.
These raisins would be placed into a reserve pool to be sold outside the
open market, used for the school lunch program, or given away to charities
and foreign governments. Any profits from these reserve sales would go
toward funding the committee and anything left over went back to the farmers.
The Hornes refused to participate in the program in 2003 and 2004, when
raisin production far exceeded the expected demand. They tried to get around
the regulations by packaging crops on their own instead of going through a
middleman. But the department fined them for violating the rules.
Raisin handlers, who dry the grapes until they become raisins and then
package them, were required to give up 47 percent of their crop in 2003
season, but received far less than their costs of production. Farmers gave
up 30 percent of the crop in 2004 and were paid nothing.
Raisin prices have been relatively stable recently and the committee has not
ordered farmers to put crops in reserve since 2010.
Only a small number of other crops are regulated in the same way, though
federal officials say most programs are not active.
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/high-court-strikes-down-raisin-program-unconstitutional
T*********I
发帖数: 10729
7
8-1.
SOTOMAYOR大法官太左了。
b*****e
发帖数: 53215
8
这女劳模看样子就不像好人

【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 8-1.
: SOTOMAYOR大法官太左了。

f**********n
发帖数: 29853
9
she got this job because of Obama.

【在 b*****e 的大作中提到】
: 这女劳模看样子就不像好人
S**C
发帖数: 2964
10
Yes it is indeed unbelievable.
It is also unbelievable that the Congress did not repeal that law after
nearly 80 years. I cannot decide which one is more astonishing and sad.

【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 8-1.
: SOTOMAYOR大法官太左了。

N*********6
发帖数: 2302
11
这是你在买提Debut 的第一贴么?

【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: she got this job because of Obama.
1 (共1页)
进入USANews版参与讨论
相关主题
Ginsburg可能活不过明年Supreme Court will hear new challenge to affirmative action
右派還是跟國民黨像,裝屄犯多,看左派心多齐这次AA恐怕保不住了
Trump 说,他有可能再指定四名大法官。Jan 25,高院案子再一桩
美国总统欧巴马为什么私下资助伊朗4亿美元以从事恐怖活动?共和党说大选后再任命大法官
Texas好样的2010年法庭9名大法官当选的情况
强烈推荐:大選決定未來大法官動向!研究了一下fisher vs. UT的argument
大选杂谈:没决定选谁的看看,已经决定的就算了 (转载)非法移民当然可以投票 见Evenwel-Abbott
现在加州大学的录取原则 (转载)七国禁令可能上高院
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: raisin话题: program话题: crops话题: farmers话题: hornes