A win for states' rights

[Belsnickel]

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/u-s-supreme-court-upholds-virginia-s-right-to-ban/article_0ba64fd1-1cdd-5cac-ad78-f0155c0c5190.html

Tl;dr: Virginia has had a ~30 year ban on uranium mining, and as such has one of the largest untapped deposits of uranium ore in the country. A company sued to gain access, but SCOTUS upheld the state's right to control over its natural resources. It was 6-3, with the liberal and conservative justices in favor unable to join together in an opinion, so there are two concurring opinions for three justices each, and one dissent from Roberts, Breyer, and Alito.

I've talked before about being big into water politics, and this is a huge win for clean water. But it is also a big win for states regarding control of their own land.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 04:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/u-s-supreme-court-upholds-virginia-s-right-to-ban/article_0ba64fd1-1cdd-5cac-ad78-f0155c0c5190.html

Tl;dr: Virginia has had a ~30 year ban on uranium mining, and as such has one of the largest untapped deposits of uranium ore in the country. A company sued to gain access, but SCOTUS upheld the state's right to control over its natural resources. It was 6-3, with the liberal and conservative justices in favor unable to join together in an opinion, so there are two concurring opinions for three justices each, and one dissent from Roberts, Breyer, and Alito.

I've talked before about being big into water politics, and this is a huge win for clean water. But it is also a big win for states regarding control of their own land.

Who owns the land?

[Belsnickel]

(06-17-2019, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who owns the land?

Private owner, actually one of the individuals suing the Commonwealth under the Virginia Uranium umbrella because he was unhappy with the law.

Admittedly, this creates an issue of property rights, but the environmental impact of the mining would stretch far beyond the owner's property lines.

[GMDino]

(06-17-2019, 04:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/u-s-supreme-court-upholds-virginia-s-right-to-ban/article_0ba64fd1-1cdd-5cac-ad78-f0155c0c5190.html

Tl;dr: Virginia has had a ~30 year ban on uranium mining, and as such has one of the largest untapped deposits of uranium ore in the country. A company sued to gain access, but SCOTUS upheld the state's right to control over its natural resources. It was 6-3, with the liberal and conservative justices in favor unable to join together in an opinion, so there are two concurring opinions for three justices each, and one dissent from Roberts, Breyer, and Alito.

I've talked before about being big into water politics, and this is a huge win for clean water. But it is also a big win for states regarding control of their own land.

I thought this was going to be about the double jeopardy ruling. 

Yours is good news too.

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who owns the land?

Private property.

[Belsnickel]

(06-17-2019, 04:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I thought this was going to be about the double jeopardy ruling. 

Yours is good news too.

Man, today was a good day for SCOTUS news.

I should double check the opinions list before saying that.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 04:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Private owner, actually one of the individuals suing the Commonwealth under the Virginia Uranium umbrella because he was unhappy with the law.

Admittedly, this creates an issue of property rights, but the environmental impact of the mining would stretch far beyond the owner's property lines.

(06-17-2019, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Private property.

Yeah, to me that makes a huge difference. Hope I don't strike gold on my Virginia property. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-17-2019, 04:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, to me that makes a huge difference. Hope I don't strike gold on my Virginia property. 

For gold, you're fine. No radioactive pollution potential. We're fine with other mines, as evidenced by all the problems we have with coal mine pollution around our state.

[*michaelsean*]

Damn pro-business conservative justices.

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2019, 01:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Damn pro-business conservative justices.

The interesting thing is that I am sure if the argument had been made more in that direction then it may have been a different vote. But, the argument was with regards to federal supremacy of a law overseeing nuclear regulation. Some of the justices that ruled against the plaintiffs probably think that the owner of the land should be able to mine, but that wasn't the argument before them.

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2019, 01:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The interesting thing is that I am sure if the argument had been made more in that direction then it may have been a different vote. But, the argument was with regards to federal supremacy of a law overseeing nuclear regulation. Some of the justices that ruled against the plaintiffs probably think that the owner of the land should be able to mine, but that wasn't the argument before them.

Some opined that the fed gov could seize the land through emanate domain and then mine.