OnTheIssues.org
Home Issues Candidates Recent Grid Archive Senate VoteMatch_Quiz
 Notebooks:   |   Bill   Sponsorships   Policy   Reports   Memberships/   Affiliations   Group   Ratings   Court   Rulings   Congressional   Surveys 
       

Bill Sponsorships
Policy Reports
Memberships / Affiliations
Group Ratings
Court Rulings
Senate Surveys


Bill Sponsorships:
Congressional bills 2011-2012
Congressional bills 2009-2010
2008 Presidential Contenders' bills
Congressional bills 1998-2008
2010 Senate signature bills
2008 Senate signature bills
2008 Presidential signature bills
Pres. Barack Obama's Senate signature bills
V.P. Joe Biden's Senate signature bills
Rep. Ron Paul's House signature bills
Sen. John McCain's Senate signature bills
Sen. Hillary Clinton's Senate signature bills


Memberships:
Congressional memberships 2012
Congressional memberships 2001-2011
112th Congress Committees
Congressional Caucuses
Congressional Group Ratings


Surveys:
Surveys: Collection of all surveys in one summary.
2012 Project Vote Smart
2012 Christian Coalition voter guide
2010 Christian Coalition voter guide
2010 Faith2Action.org voter guide
2010 Project Vote Smart
Contract From America
Contract With America


Reports & Letters:
Governmental Reports
Resolutions
Resolutions 2011
Letters
Letters 2011
Supreme Court Rulings
Supreme Court 2011:


Grids:
2008 Presidential
2004 Presidential
2000 Presidential
2008 Issues
2004 Issues
2000 Issues


Senate Votes:
2008-2011
Through 2011
Through 2009
Through 2007
Through 2003
1994-1999


House Votes:
2008-2011
Through 2011
1994-2004
1999-2003


  

    This page contains Supreme Court rulings -- with summaries of the majority and minority conclusions.

99-5525 on Apr 19, 2000

Decided Jun 26, 2000
Case Ruling: DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES
Mr. Dickerson, under indictment for bank robbery and related federal crimes, moved to suppress a statement he had made to the FBI, on the ground he had not received “Miranda warnings” before being interrogated. The Government appealed [on the grounds that] his statement was voluntary [as allowed by a Congressional law]. That court concluded that Miranda was not a constitutional holding, and that, therefore, Congress could by statute have the final say on the admissibility question.

Held:

(Rehnquist, joined by Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer)
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect’s statement could be admitted in evidence. Congress then enacted a rule that the admissibility of such statements should turn only on whether or not they were voluntarily made. We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves.

Dissent:

(Scalia, joined by Thomas)
Today’s decision is not a reaffirmation of Miranda, but a radical revision of the most significant element of Miranda. Marbury v. Madison (1803), held that an Act of Congress will not be enforced by the courts if what it prescribes violates the Constitution. That was the basis on which Miranda was decided. One will search today’s opinion in vain, however, for a statement (surely simple enough to make) that [the law in this case] violates the Constitution. [Instead, the Court is adopting] a significant new principle of constitutional law, in which statutes of Congress can be disregarded, not only when what they prescribe violates the Constitution, but when what they prescribe contradicts a decision of this Court that “announced a constitutional rule.” I dissent.


    Participating counts on VoteMatch question 9. Question 9: Stricter punishment reduces crime Scores: -2=Strongly oppose; -1=Oppose; 0=neutral; 1=Support; 2=Strongly support.
  • Topic: Civil Rights
  • Headline: Uphold "Miranda", informing people being arrested of rights (Score: -1)
  • Headline 2: Miranda rights can be overruled by Congress (Score: 2)

  • Key for participation codes:
  • Sponsorships: p=sponsored; o=co-sponsored; s=signed
  • Memberships: c=chair; m=member; e=endorsed; f=profiled; s=scored
  • Resolutions: i=introduced; w=wrote; a=adopted
  • Cases: w=wrote; j=joined; d=dissented; c=concurred
  • Surveys: '+' supports; '-' opposes.



Democrats participating in 99-5525

Stephen Breyer j1US Democratic Appointee to Supreme Court 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg j1US Democratic Appointee to Supreme Court 



Republicans participating in 99-5525

Anthony Kennedy j1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court 
Sandra Day O`Connor j1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (retired 2005) 
William Rehnquist w1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (until 2005) 
Antonin Scalia w2dUS Republican Appointee to Supreme Court 
David Souter j1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (retired 2009) 
John Paul Stevens j1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (retired 2010) 
Clarence Thomas j2dUS Republican Appointee to Supreme Court 



Independents participating in 99-5525



Total recorded by OnTheIssues:

Democrats: 2
Republicans: 7
Independents: 0


















Reproduction of material from any OnTheIssues.org pages without written permission is prohibited.
Copyright © 1999-2012 OnTheIssues.org & the SpeakOut Foundation, all rights reserved.
OnTheIssues.org 1770 Massachusetts Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail us at:submit at OnTheIssues.org
| Advertising information | About Us
  Newsletter     Signup  
Email:
  
Zip:
    
Or click for More Info.