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.

99-1178 on Oct 31, 2000

Decided Jan 9, 2001
Case Ruling: SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF COOK COUNTY v. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
A consortium of suburban Chicago municipalities (Cook County) selected as a solid waste disposal site an abandoned sand and gravel pit. They asked the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine if a landfill permit was required under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps cited the “Migratory Bird Rule,” which extended its jurisdiction to intrastate waters that provide habitat for migratory birds, and refused to issue a permit.

Held:

(Rehnquist, joined by O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, & Thomas)
Applying the Migratory Bird Rule exceeds the authority granted to the Corps under the CWA. The Corps would have jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to a navigable waterway, but these wetlands are not adjacent to open water.

Dissent:

(Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, & Breyer)
In 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, coated with a slick of industrial waste, caught fire. Congress responded to that dramatic event by enacting the Clean Water Act. The Act proclaimed the ambitious goal of ending water pollution by 1985. The Court’s past interpretations of the CWA have been fully consistent with that goal. Today, however, the Court takes an unfortunate step that needlessly weakens our principal safeguard against toxic water.

In its decision today, the Court draws a new jurisdictional line, one that invalidates the 1986 migratory bird regulation as well as the Corps’ assertion of jurisdiction over all waters except for actually navigable waters, their tributaries, and wetlands adjacent to each.

Congress does support the Corps’ present interpretation of its mission as extending to so-called “isolated” waters. I respectfully dissent.


    Participating counts on VoteMatch question 18. Question 18: Prioritize green energy Scores: -2=Strongly oppose; -1=Oppose; 0=neutral; 1=Support; 2=Strongly support.
  • Topic: Environment
  • Headline: Limit CWA restrictions to navigable waterways (Score: -1)
  • Headline 2: Extend CWA restrictions to isolated water bodies (Score: 1)

    Participating counts on AmericansElect question 8.
  • Headline: Limit CWA restrictions to navigable waterways (Answer: A)
  • Headline 2: Extend CWA restrictions to isolated water bodies (Answer: C)
  • AmericansElect Quiz Question 8 on Environment: Which of the following statements comes closest to your personal view?
    • A: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity
    • B: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity, but should be somewhat protected
    • C: Natural resources should be mostly protected, but also exist for the benefit of humanity
    • D: Natural resources exist on their own and should be completely protected
    • E: Unsure


  • 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 99-1178

Stephen Breyer j2dUS Democratic Appointee to Supreme Court 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg j2dUS Democratic Appointee to Supreme Court 



Republicans participating in 99-1178

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 j1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court 
David Souter j2dUS Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (retired 2009) 
John Paul Stevens w2dUS Republican Appointee to Supreme Court (retired 2010) 
Clarence Thomas j1US Republican Appointee to Supreme Court 



Independents participating in 99-1178



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.