Goals Coal and the Rule of Law

Done properly, the role of a judge must be boring at times. Sure, sometimes you'll hear interesting disputes, but most of the time a jurist should be applying the law to the facts of a case and reaching a result that is unaffected by personal prejudice. There's little opportunity for a judge who is true to his calling to make public policy decisions. That's probably why judges are occasionally tempted to stray, and do what they think is right rather than implement what the Legislature thought was right when they wrote the law. When judges do that, though, they sometimes prove that maxim that (and I paraphrase) "he that would do justice rather than follow the law ends up doing neither."

That's why it's so satisfying to see the WV Supreme Court applying the law as written - whether they agree with the result or not. Coal River Mountain Watch challenged a permit for the construction of a second coal silo by Goals Coal on property it permitted in Raleigh County near Sundial. The permit map had been hand drawn in 1982 and markers were placed in the ground at that time, marking the boundary of the property . There was a discrepancy between the map and the boundary markers, and Coal River Mountain Watch challenged the second coal silo on the grounds that it wasn't located on the permitted property, as represented on the map, even though it was within the area marked at the site itself. Sounds pretty nitpicking, but the real impetus for the appeal was local opposition to the construction of the coal silo near Marsh Fork Elementary School.

The Supreme Court noted that it was not a super legislature, empowered to decide whether this was a good location to build a silo. Instead, it limited itself to a review of the state and federal surface mine acts, and concluded that the permit area was identifiable by appropriate markers on the mine site. the silo could be built because it was within the area marked at the site.

Is it a good idea to put a coal silo that close to an elementary school? It may or may not be, but the Supreme Court wasn't called on to make that decision. It merely interpreted the law honestly and objectively. In the opinion of some, that wasn't always the case with the Supreme Court in the past.