Critics of the 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court claimed the justices would never agree. And it’s true, that on many crucial issues, the court might be split over deeply-held views. But it doesn’t seem that this court is incapable of providing a united front on critical cases.
The Supreme Court is the final word on many issues facing American citizens and states. It plays a key role in preventing runaway governments from doing as they please. In a recent decision, two states were fighting over the rights to water. And the court just delivered a unanimous decision.
From The Epoch Times:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against Mississippi’s claim that Tennessee was improperly taking water.
The case was filed years ago by Mississippi, which alleged that a Memphis-area utility provider was wrongly pumping groundwater from a portion of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer, which lies beneath eight states…
All nine justices sided with Tennessee.
It appears Mississippi was fighting to retain control over water it believed came from its aquifer. The state was attacking Tennessee, which it accused of stealing water. But the Supreme Court had another opinion. All nine justices sided with Tennessee, ruling that one state does not have “sovereign ownership rights” to groundwater.
The justices noted that Tennessee wasn’t violating any laws, nor was the state crossing into Mississippi to take water. All the wells mentioned in the case were located in Tennessee. It appears MI was trying to suggest that the water was coming from its state.
This is a crucial ruling because if the court sided with Mississippi, it would have set a big precedent. It would have meant that states cannot draw water if another state claims they owned it. But a “doctrine of equitable” apportionment means both states have fair allocation to shared water.
TRENDING : Biden’s Performance Report Reaches Low In 45 States – Joe’s Disapproval Is Now Higher Than His Approval Across The Country
Why did Mississippi fight so hard to control this water? Maybe they thought they could charge Tennessee for access to this water? Perhaps they were hoping to have exclusive access to this water for their own citizens? We can only speculate, but the court’s ruling is what matters most.
All nine justices agreed with Tennessee. This is further proof that this “divided” court can often come together to issue unanimous decisions.
Which shatters some leaders’ demands to “pack” the court with new justices.