# Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Raisin Farmers.



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Interesting.

Regards, Mike

http://www.agweb.com/article/supreme-court-rules-for-raisin-farmers-NAA-associated-press/


----------



## Coondle (Aug 28, 2013)

Mike this is interesting from several angles:

This ruling has its genesis in English law with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 by a 12yo King John in a meadow in Runnymede. There had been a campaign by the English aristocracy to prevent the taking of property without just compensation. Here endeth the first history lesson.

I also wonder if Justice Clarence Thomas realised the pun when talking about raisins and saying in part:

"It would be a fruitless exercise."

Of course if you take the fruit off them it would be a fruitless case!

I also wonder how Justice Sonia Sotomayer could follow a logical course of taking property under compulsion and then give something less than the value taken back to the producers does not amount to a deprivation of property rights.

I know that US common law is rooted in the English common law as existed before Independence and then developed within the USA after. The concept of just compensation for compulsory acquisition of property (Real and personal) predated Independence by over 500 years. Indeed the article indicates that many States in order to entrench the common law foundation have enacted laws to make that concept clear.

In a free market if a grower gets less than budgeted for.... tough, but the grower has got the value the market place (or the particular deal he has negotiated'/freely entered) is prepared to give for the commodity. However if someone (e.g. government) takes by compulsion then the return of less than the potential market value (she says income) is clearly a deprivation of property rights.

Following another thread: The right to do as the possessor wishes with the property is interfered with by the government. Normally a property owner would wish to maximise the return on property transfer. However a fundamental basis of property is that the owner may do as they wish, e.g. maximise return, or destroy the property (provided others rights are not involved like insurance) or give it away ,or sell it at any price even below market. The problem with Sotomayer J's logic is that the couple lost the fundamental right to the raisins including possession and the government exercised all propertyy rights over the taken raisins.

Are you confused. Shouldn't be.

If it is mine do not take it off me without paying a proper fare for it. If you do that then you can do as you wish with it, but not otherwise.


----------

