0
1

[–] reshp1 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That's nice for raisin farmers, but what's the wider implication of the ruling?

0
2

[–] Xomthusiast [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The US Constitution specifically provides (Amendment V) that private property cannot be taken by the government for public use, without just compensation. The position of the government was that private property (raisin crops) could be taken for public use without any compensation, because it was asserted that the raisin farmers benefitted from it. The Supreme Court has just said that that isn't permitted. The consequence is that a lot of similar agricultural programs also can't proceed on an involuntary basis.

0
0

[–] Islington ago 

Theoretically speaking, if the raisin farmers, under some new sort of raisin-seizing scheme, are shown to be justly compensated and to actually benefit, will that be allowed?

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Xomthusiast [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I've looked a bit, can't find a breakdown anywhere. But the commission that controlled the raisin "strategic reserve" was allowed to sell the confiscated raisins outside the US market and just keep the money. I would guess that they did that as often as possible, and only donated them when they couldn't make a profit selling them. It's only a guess, though.