SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Carolyn who wrote (4464)12/4/2000 3:50:27 AM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (1) of 6710
 
We can begin now by discussing Thomas' ability on the Supreme Court and the opinions he writes.

supct.law.cornell.edu

Go for it!

jttmab

P.S>...Here's one of the burning Constitutional Issues that the Court had Justice Thomas deliver the Court's opinion on. Perhaps you would like to start with this one. [Or pick another from the list]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

OREGON WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE STATE OF OREGON et al.

certiorari to the supreme court of oregon

No. 93-70. Argued January 18, 1994 -- Decided April 4, 1994

Oregon imposes a $2.50 per ton surcharge on the in state disposal of solid waste generated in other States and an $0.85 per ton fee on the disposal of waste generated within Oregon. Petitioners sought review of the out of state surcharge in the State Court of Appeals, challenging the administrative rule establishing the surcharge and its enabling statutes under, inter alia, the Commerce Clause. The court upheld the statutes and rule, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Despite the Oregon statutes' explicit reference to out of state waste's geographical location, the court reasoned, the surcharge's express nexus to actual costs incurred by state and local government rendered it a facially constitutional "compensatory fee."

Held: Oregon's surcharge is facially invalid under the negative Commerce Clause. Pp. 5-16.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News