N.J. Justices Dissent in River Case; Scalia Offers ‘Snide Dish’ of Tofu, Bean Sprouts
The U.S. Supreme Court’s two New Jersey-born justices dissented in a ruling yesterday that favored rival Delaware in a dispute over the building of a liquefied natural gas processing plant.
At issue were the states’ rights under a 1905 agreement that allowed each state to exercise “riparian jurisdiction” on its side of the Delaware River.
Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Delaware had the right to veto the project on New Jersey’s side of the river because of its “extraordinary character,” the New York Times reports. The huge wharf required to accommodate the plant would extend into Delaware’s riverbed territory, she said.
The Times points out that the two dissenters, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr., were born in New Jersey. Legal Blog Watch reports that Scalia served up a “snide dish” of tofu and bean sprouts in his dissent.
Scalia targeted Ginsburg’s test that allowed veto rights for projects of “extraordinary character.”
“What in the world does it mean?” Scalia asked. “Would a pink wharf or a zig-zagged wharf qualify?”
“After all, our environmentally sensitive court concedes that if New Jersey had approved a wharf of equivalent dimensions, to accommodate tankers of equivalent size, carrying tofu and bean sprouts, Delaware could not have interfered.”
