2018-54
16-1275
Virginia Uranium, Inc., et al., Petitions v. John Warren, et al.

Summary Analysis

R-54
DATE: 2019-06-17
DOCKET: 16-1275
NAME: Virginia Uranium, Inc., et al., Petitions v. John Warren, et al.
WORTHY: False

OPINION: Court
   AUTHOR: Gorsuch
   JOINING: Thomas, Kavanaugh
   GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 17

OPINION: Concurring
   AUTHOR: Ginsburg
   JOINING: Sotomayor, Kagan
   GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 14

OPINION: Dissenting
   AUTHOR: Roberts
   JOINING: Breyer, Alito
   GOOD: No
PAGES: 9


Case Commentary

Hey! Guess what? I ain't no lawyer. And while playing dress up as a child, I never pretended to be one. So terms like the following are new to me.

Field Preemption occurs when the Federal Government Legislates so comprehensively (and/or to such a ridiculous extent, as it usually does) that there is no room left over for any additional State Legislation.

Conflict Preemption occurs when State and Federal Law are in conflict. And in these instances, Federal Law {always, almost always} takes precedence... or at least, I am not aware of a single instance where it does not.



In the previous case (Double Jeopardy), it was argued that the States are Sovereigns unto themselves. However, it is pretty clear that when Federal Law Preempts (as it so often does) such a notion is more wishful thinking than reality.



The Case at hand concerns Uranium Mining. I do not know by what Right the Federal Government regulates Uranium Mining. In fact, I have a suspicion that a Strict Constitutionalist (or should that be Literal Constitutionalist) would have to concede that the Federal Government has no such Right... or, you know, perform such mental gymnastics as have become par for the course... and which continue to make a mockery of The Rule of Law with almost every additional Supreme Court ruling.

Why did The Rule of Law cross the road?

Stare Decisi.

Or better yet:

Knock! Knock!
Who's there?
Justice.

And that's the end of that, as there is no Justice under our current Legal System. And as such, anyone inside should know that there is no one at the door.



Ideology aside, The Fed does regulate Uranium Mining (whether it has this Right under The Constitution or not) and passed a law that was rather comprehensive. And more than that, the law specifically stipulated that the States could not add any additional rules... to certain provisions... but not to others.

Now, the question at hand is whether additional rules can be added to those other provisions even if they effect the aforementioned certain provisions, for which additional Legislation is barred?

On first blush, one might say, 'No!'

Or far more likely, one might say, 'I think I lost track of a dependant clause in that sentence somewhere, so could you repeat the question, please?'



Fine!

A is Barred from further Regulation.
B is Not.
Is it OK (kosher, cricket, sporting, and/or simply permissible) to Regulate B in such a way that A is, also, Effected?

Like I said, on the surface, the answer would seem to be No.

But then, everything (and I mean, everything, baby) is interconnected.

B almost always effects A in some way... however minor or tangential the connection might be. And that will be enough for some clever lawyer (there must be at least one clever lawyer out there) to use as a wedge to defeat the measure.



I see the above as the Dissent's Essential Argument: B effects A, so B is not permissible.



I, of course, have simplified the situation greatly. The truth is closer to:

A is Barred from further Regulation.
B is Barred from further Regulation.
C is Barred from further Regulation.
...
ZZ is Barred from further Regulation.

And the question now becomes, given the enormous list of things that are regulated and the fact that Z34 is specifically NOT Barred from further Regulation, can Z34 be further Regulated?

I would say yes.

If Congress doesn't like the effect, it can add a blanket Bar to further Regulation or fine tune an amendment Barring further Regulation of Z34.



That's about the whole of the case... to my untrained eye, anyhow.

And this would be a prime example of where I am willing to accept Stare Decisi (or more accurately, The Decision of the Court), as I respectfully, do not give a crap about the particulars of the issue at hand.