Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Banned
- #181
It didn't rationalize like I said?
So, when the court said "The effect of the Act is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing for his own needs" they weren't actually saying he was involved in the market.
How about when they said? "A factor of such volume and variability as wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat, with rising prices, may flow into the market and check price increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in the open market."
How about this? "Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty, but also what may be consumed on the premises. Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as "available for marketing" as so defined, and the penalty is imposed thereon."
Maybe the problem here is not that I haven't read the decision, maybe the problem is that you can't think.
You do this all the time and it's really pathetic. You hold up an octopus and you call it a horse. You're looking right at it, and you still call it a horse. You pull on the tentacles and say "Look, it's got rein, it must be a horse, you're too stupid to know it." The things you are saying are not there to be read in the decision. You quote things, and then proceed to explain how those very things say something entirely different than what they say. So until you can bring your reading comprehension up to at least a 6th grade level, there is no reason to consider anything you think you have to say.