- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Posts
- 7,080
- Reaction score
- 611
- Points
- 965
Yup! Say thank you to our dear leader for this leftist progressive who would be more then happy to stomp on your personal rights. I mean just read her reasoning from this insane woman.
The Supreme Court has struck a blow for property rights.
SCOTUS ruled against the government in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, which I talked about in an EveryNebulous column on government theft. The short of it is that a New Deal era scheme was forcing raisin growers to hand over a share of their crop to the government as part of a mandatory cartel to restrict supply and fix prices. Worse still, the government did not provide fair market value for the appropriated raisins.
On that most important question – whether or not the program falls under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which says: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” – the court ruled 8 to 1 against the government. As Ilya Somin explains, “This is an extremely important result, because it rejects the government’s dangerous argument that the Takings Clause offers less protection for personal property than for real property (the legal term for property in land), which had been embraced by the Ninth Circuit lower court decision.”
Photo by Allison Shelley/Getty Images
On this question the Obama-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered the lone dissent, adopting the shocking view that, “The government may condition the ability to offer goods in the market on the giving-up of certain property interests without effecting a per se taking.” In other words, because the growers might receive some tiny portion of potential sales through the government cartel (it sold some of the confiscated raisins to school lunch programs, for instance), it should not be considered a Taking and therefore not bound to meet the standard of “just compensation.”
Read more: http://www.everyNebulous.com/2015/0...radical-property-rights-stance/#ixzz3dsN86IrF