1mo ago

The Supreme Court rejects a plea to block a copper mine on land in Arizona that's sacred to Apaches

apnews.com The Supreme Court rejects a plea to block a copper mine on land in Arizona that's sacred to Apaches

The group Apache Stronghold is vowing to carry on the fight against a massive copper mining project on land the Apaches hold sacred, after a Supreme Court decision that is expected to let the mine proceed.

The justices left in place lower court decisions allowing the transfer of the Tonto National Forest land, known as Oak Flat, to Resolution Copper, which plans to mine what it says is the second-largest known copper deposit in the world.

The Trump administration has said it will push to complete the transfer.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in dissent that it was a “grievous mistake” not to take up the appeal.

“Recognizing Oak Flat’s significance, the government has long protected both the land and the Apaches’ access to it,” Gorsuch wrote, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “No more. Now, the government and a mining conglomerate want to turn Oak Flat into a massive hole in the ground.”

United States | News & Politics @midwest.social

The Supreme Court rejects a plea to block a copper mine on land in Arizona that’s sacred to Apaches

apnews.com /article/supreme-court-arizona-oak-flat-copper-mining-apache-64bb0d7c2bbf544f707ce3a421b67209

35 2

United States | News & Politics @lemmy.ml

The Supreme Court rejects a plea to block a copper mine on land in Arizona that’s sacred to Apaches

apnews.com /article/supreme-court-arizona-oak-flat-copper-mining-apache-64bb0d7c2bbf544f707ce3a421b67209

72 5

You're viewing a single thread.

15 comments

What an I missing here... Alito recused himself from this request. And Gorsuch(!) and Thomas(!!!) were part of five justices who dissented to the decision and wanted to hear the case. How did 3 justices manage to dismiss it when 5 justices wanted to hear the case? Its it different from the simple majority when it comes to hearing a case rather than deciding on a case?
- I read somewhere that the liberal justices were concerned about the religious precedent being used.
  
  I hate how valid a concern is.
- The 5 judges were from the lower court's dissent. It wasn't 5 justices at the Supreme Court. It takes 4 Supreme Court justices to grant cert on a case and hear it. It sounds like only Gorsuch and Thomas voted to hear it.
  Gorsuch is arguably the most pro-Native American justice the court has ever seen. He started his majority opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma with this sentence "On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise."
  Thomas and Gorsuch joined Alito in a 77 page dissent, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia explicitly calling to overturn a prior case that infringed on Native American's religious liberties by denying benefits to a peyote user.
  
  Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks for the explanation.
  
  I'm glad to help, headlines and sadly even the body of news articles rarely capture nuance. Law and Politics both have their controversies but they are not synonyms. When you peek behind the curtains of headlines, things start to make more sense, because, most everyone thinks that they're being rational. But most of us are simply viewing the matters from different perspectives. There are bad perspectives, but, unfortunately, there is not a best one.

15 comments