Down in the Valley: Raisins

      Well, the US Supreme Court scored one for the little guy.  It warms the Mayor's heart when a farmer goes up against the Feds on principle and takes it all the way to Washington's Supremes.  In a nutshell: a grape grower/raisin producer in California accused the governments actions dictated by a depression-era board as an unlawful taking of private property, in this case, his raisin crop.  The board said they would take 40% in an effort to maintain crop prices.  He refused and was fined over  $480,000 and a penalty of $200,000.  Not chump change.
      Marvin Horne, the farmer decided to fight.   He lost at the 9th Federal Court, that bastion of liberal thought and legal indignation.  He continued with an appeal.  In an 8 to 1 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said "the Constitution is concerned with means as well as ends," and the government's raisin program ran afoul of the Takings Clause.   Of concern was a dissenting opinion by Justice  Elena Kagin who stated that the Hornes retained property rights over the raisins after they were surrendered, thus it was not a taking.   Hmmmmm.   Sounds bogus to me.
       This has people thinking of Kelo v. City of New London, CT where the city used eminent domain to seize a private home from its owner to sell to a developer.   The homeowner lost this case; but cities responded by changing eminent domain laws across the country.
     Eat more raisins, the heck with the 9th Circuit.