Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (4464)	12/3/2000 9:56:19 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Respond to of 6710

Re: Closing arguments Is it just me or do others think the "intervener" attorneys are doing a much more impressive job than plaintiff and defendant attorneys? Nice to get a broader perspective of the law after two days of chads, rubber, and statistics.

To: Carolyn who wrote (4464)	12/3/2000 10:00:43 PM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

<<My wish is for the people of this country to get beyond the color of a person's skin>> That is a noble wish (and I am not being sarcastic) but I seriously doubt that it can ever happen in the near future. TG

To: Carolyn who wrote (4464)	12/4/2000 3:50:27 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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.