The case of New Jersey v. Delaware gets decided 7-2 in favor of Delaware. The two dissenters, Scalia and Alito are both from New Jersey. Conservative jurisprudence in action, or just Garden State pride? I'm sure Clarence Thomas and John Roberts are too polite to offer their honest views of the matter.
« Paying Off | Main | Emboldening »
Jersey Judges
01 Apr 2008 09:07 am
Comments (11)
both from New Jersey
Scalia is "from New Jersey" in the sense that he was born there, but his family moved to New York when he was five.
Presumably he is biased because he has fond memories of New Jersey from when he was a four-year-old?
Scalia and Alito are both from NJ? As a NJ native myself, I humbly apologize!!
"Welcome to New Jersey!
Don't Worry, We Hate You, Too!"
The interesting thing is that they were both actually born in the same city - Trenton.
As the famous (well, famous to us New Jerseyians) bridge says - "Trenton Makes - The World Takes".
An excerpt from the dissenting opinion (Scalia and Alito). I think it's safe to say that there opinion goes well beyond any bias towards Jersey (please!)
All are agreed that jurisdiction and power over that right were given to New Jersey on its side of the Delaware River. The Court says, however, that that jurisdiction and power was not exclusive. I find that difficult to accept, because if Delaware could forbid the wharfing out that Article VII allowed New Jersey to permit, Article VII was a ridiculous nullity. That could not be what was meant. The Court seeks to avoid that obstacle to credibility by saying that Delaware’s jurisdiction and power is limited to forbidding “activities that go beyondthe exercise of ordinary and usual riparian rights.” Ante, at 15.
It is only “riparian structures and operations of extraordinary character” over which Delaware retains “overlapping authority to regulate.” Ante, at 3 (emphasis added). But that also is difficult to accept, because the Court explains neither the meaning nor the provenance of its “extraordinary character” test. The exception (whatever it means) has absolutely no basis in prior law, which dissenting regards as beyond the “ordinary and usual” (and hencebeyond the legitimate) only that wharfing out which interferes with navigation. So unheard-of is the exception that its first appearance in this case is in the Court’s opinion. I would sustain New Jersey’s objections to the Special Master’s Report.
That Scalia can sure write. He is scary good.
I've watched this case closely from the outset and spoke at length to two members of Delaware's legal team who were present for oral arguments last year.
The consensus view after oral arguments was that Delaware was toast given the increasing pro-business tilt of the Roberts court, so the 6-2 decision was a shocker until you realize how out to lunch Alito and Scalia were on the overriding jurisdictional question.
I rue the direction that the court is headed in, but it still has the ability to pleasantly surprise.
There's a reason all the bridges are free going into Jersey and charge you a toll to escape.
There's a reason all the bridges are free going into Jersey and charge you a toll to escape.
Not true. The bridge that connects the Jersey and Pennsylvania Turnpikes charges in both directions.
Geez, would it have killed you (or LGM) to say what this decision was actually ABOUT? There's a limited amount of work I'm willing to go through to try to figure this stuff out. After all, if I need to go searching around the Supreme Court's website to read up on this... what do I need your blog for?
Comments closed April 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It actually was 6-2. Breyer sat out because he owned some BP stock, which was the company that NJ wanted to place stuff into the disputed area of the river between DE and NJ.
Posted by Alan | April 1, 2008 9:42 AM