Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News: City Limits

Re: “Board member and outspoken critic Will Pinkston calls openly for regime change at Metro schools

What's GOT to go is Policy Governance.

6 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Kay Brooks on 07/10/2014 at 8:20 AM

Re: “Is support for medical marijuana lighting a fire under Tennessee lawmakers?

Tennessee is just stupid they can charges $5 per gram on taxes and they would make a fortune. so you were to buy $20 worth of DRO it would be $25 then the government's making money off of that of marijuana photo effects of marijuana so then we could turn around and they could use that money for roads schools and everything else that would make money just like Colorado Washington and all of them

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by DewayneO on 07/09/2014 at 5:47 PM

Re: “Styles, manners and fashions change, but after more than 50 years in high-end Nashville retail, Betty Lott is forever

Betty is so special! She has helped us numerous times over the years from toddler to pre-teen. Always with a smile. Always helpful. Thank goodness for her positive sunny disposition.

Posted by debby mistler on 07/05/2014 at 6:18 PM

Re: “Here are the players — and issues — in the Supreme Court retention elections

Mr. Calloway, why do you think the use of non-standard English to be persuasive? Is the urge to channel Joe McCarthy irresistible?

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by notguilty on 07/03/2014 at 10:22 PM

Re: “Three candidates vie for that rarity in contemporary Tennessee: a Democratic stronghold

Wrong, freshfriend. In 1972, Brad Martin was elected state representative from a Memphis district two days after his twenty-first birthday.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by notguilty on 07/03/2014 at 10:11 PM

Re: “Here are the players — and issues — in the Supreme Court retention elections

It's pretty obvious from looking at election results for the last few cycles that Tennessee voters do not feel the Democrat party in any way, shape, form, etc comes close to representing them. Turn the Democrat appointees out.

1 like, 4 dislikes
Posted by James Clark Calloway on 07/03/2014 at 4:33 PM

Re: “Three candidates vie for that rarity in contemporary Tennessee: a Democratic stronghold

I like how you just toss aside the Republican candidates. Josh Rawlings could be our youngest Represenative ever....we need youth in politics. The democratic candidates have PAC money and refuse to talk big issues.

Change 51

4 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by freshfried on 07/03/2014 at 11:56 AM

Re: “In Senate District 19, a party faithful challenges longtime North Nashville incumbent Thelma Harper

I think it was really weak of the article to not call out the two companies that Harper has taken money from, especially since she clearly wants to dodge the issue. Harper in an entrenched politician who has gown complacent due to lack of serious challenges. She doesn't author much legislation, which shows, if anything, that she is more of a social leader than a legislative one. There is certainly respect to be given her for becoming the first black woman elected to the state senate, but I think it is time to get some fresh blood in there. There is a ton of cognitive dissonance being experienced by her supporters, some of which know that she isn't leading as strongly as they wish she should, but know she isn't going to become anything more than what she already is. I'm sure there are plenty of her supporters who would be happy if she simply retired.

While Harper my be helping getting things done by supporting legislation authored by senators in other districts, it's about time District 19 gets a representative who can cast a vision for the future and write legislation and gather like minds that support that vision. Personally, being a Libertarian, I am not going to align with lots of Harper's political positions (like her opposition to wine in grocery stores), so for me, I'm eager to just see change. In my opinion, we have plenty of conservative representation in the state. Having a bunch of moderate Democrats doesn't elevate the democracy, because the moderates just follow the majority and don't step on toes. I think we have enough serious issues in this state to invite a few more voices who are willing to present vastly different perspectives, even if they aren't perspectives I agree with.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by East Nasty on 06/25/2014 at 2:43 PM

Re: “In Senate District 19, a party faithful challenges longtime North Nashville incumbent Thelma Harper

From the description of Mr. Puttbrease's days with the TDP, it looks like when the going got tough, he got going. Doesn't sound like a fighter to me, only someone who likes to hear himself talk in whatever forum--or district--he thinks he can crawl into. Talk---no substance!

5 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by cassandra walker on 06/22/2014 at 11:06 PM

Re: “In Senate District 19, a party faithful challenges longtime North Nashville incumbent Thelma Harper

Harper scuttled a Jack Daniels museum and store on lower Broadway largely out of pure ego because she felt the Representative from Moore County hadn't properly paid respects to her. She said it out loud. Given I've also heard her pine for a return to Prohibition, the two may be related.

She's all hat.

14 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Further on 06/19/2014 at 12:13 PM
Posted by Elmer Gantry on 06/18/2014 at 8:38 PM

Re: “Riding the Amp route with MTA regulars puts the need for the project — and its drawbacks — in perspective

The real problem was ever making the downtown bus station boondoggle (unconnected to any other transportation modes, including the alleged train service) a "must go to" for all routes--when easy, low cost or free transfers between bus routes would have increased ease of getting from one point to another for less cost. The investment should have been not in the "universal solution" around here these days, more construction-- but in buses connecting more key places, more drivers, more maintenance. And they might have talked to more bus riders, as you did. What a concept.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Driver By Default on 06/18/2014 at 3:11 AM

Re: “Riding the Amp route with MTA regulars puts the need for the project — and its drawbacks — in perspective

"Everyone I talked to about the project, even those excited about it, were quick to qualify their opinions and acknowledge the negatives: potential traffic snarls, the animosity it's being met with, problems with the route.

Even Stokes, whose bus commute would be shortened by nearly two-thirds, lamented its impact on traffic."

Would be shortened? Would be, as in you already know it would be reduced, not "could be" though.

Where is the freaking fact review in these articles? Are editorials beyond a little verification?

If the author was truly un-involved or neutral, as he states several times, then why does he give absolute faith to the best possible projected improvements?

would it no be better for the author, who knows very little about the issues he is writing on, to take a "less than totally sold on the amp" attitude towards it? at least, if he expects the reader to believe him when he states his neutral position.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Joshua Michael Cloud on 06/17/2014 at 2:21 PM

Re: “Forget the Senate and governor races: Ron Ramsey's assault on the Tennessee Supreme Court is the most important race of the year

Cheap Jerseys http://www.jerseysoncn.com
Cheap NBA Jerseys http://www.jerseysoncn.com
Cheap NHL Jerseys http://www.jerseysoncn.com
Cheap NFL Jerseys http://www.jerseysoncn.com
Cheap MLB Jerseys http://www.jerseysoncn.com
wholesale Jerseys http://www.jerseysoncn.com

5845645

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by tiantianxishi on 06/17/2014 at 5:55 AM

Re: “Forget the Senate and governor races: Ron Ramsey's assault on the Tennessee Supreme Court is the most important race of the year

Two different issues. 1.) The TSC's inherent supervisory authority over the JPEC. 2.) The Mal-apportioned JPEC created by the Senate and House Speakers' appointments, to “perform objective evaluations and to issue fair and accurate reports,” for the benefit of both male and female qualified voters, on a proportional basis, was violated. The TSC's failure to correct the Mal-apportioned JPEC, creates invalid recommendations for retention and therefore unlawful declarations of candidacy by members of the appellate Court. The lawsuit complaining of the Mal-apportionment cannot be adjudicated by its Defendants.

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by tonygottlieb on 06/16/2014 at 9:13 PM

Re: “Forget the Senate and governor races: Ron Ramsey's assault on the Tennessee Supreme Court is the most important race of the year

Tony: Believe it or not, I was not being sarcastic. I honestly have no idea which judges are currently presiding over the JPEC case or whether special judges have been appointed. What I find interesting is that under the standard for recusal that you recited, all of the Supreme Court justices would be required to recuse from deciding the JPEC issue. And yet you insist that they acted improperly by failing to address the JPEC issue, under their inherent authority or a statute regarding administrative support or whatever. Your position is internally inconsistent.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Amicus Curiae on 06/16/2014 at 8:12 PM

Re: “Forget the Senate and governor races: Ron Ramsey's assault on the Tennessee Supreme Court is the most important race of the year

Amicus: The JPEC is part of the Judicial Branch of government. Under their own rule Rule 27 the Supreme Court and the appointees of the JPEC have no power to waive any provision of the statute. That includes TCA 17-4-201(b)(6).

These Judges have made their Declaration of Candidacy based upon the invalid recommendations of the Mal-apportioned JPEC. Those are unlawful.

You are no doubt being sarcastic about having no knowledge as to any conflict of interest on the part of the appellate Judges. These Judges derive their salary, benefits and pensions as a result of the statute and the recommendations for Retention by the JPEC, under the statute are as much a part of the their qualifications for office as age and residency. Anybody can see there is a conflict. To deny otherwise is laughable.

Article VI §11: No Judge of the Supreme or Inferior Courts shall preside on the trial of any cause in the event of which he may be interested,....
SCR 10 Rule 2.11 Disqualification
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:....

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by tonygottlieb on 06/16/2014 at 5:10 PM

Re: “Riding the Amp route with MTA regulars puts the need for the project — and its drawbacks — in perspective

I would like the feds to build a transit link between my house and the Donut Den.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by theanony on 06/16/2014 at 4:14 PM

Re: “Forget the Senate and governor races: Ron Ramsey's assault on the Tennessee Supreme Court is the most important race of the year

Tony: I think you are cherry-picking language from statutes that simply do not apply. For example, the language you quoted from TCA 16-3-502 about the Court taking affirmative/proactive action refers to the Court's authority to "Direct the administrative director of the courts to provide administrative support to all of the courts of the state through an administrative office of the courts." That has no application here, unless you think that the Court should have somehow addressed JPEC's gender misapportionment through administrative support.
I have no knowledge as to any conflict of interest on the part of the appellate judges currently ruling on the JPEC case; as long as they weren't evaluated in the most recent JPEC session, I see no problem, but you may have info that I don't.
At the end of the day, I think you are criticizing the Court because it failed to take an extraordinary, unprecedented action that you would have liked to see happen. Instead, the Court is conforming to the proper role of the judiciary, which is to rule on issues in the context of cases and controversies.
Also, I noticed you did not address my recusal question: do you believe that the justices are subject to recusal in the JPEC case, and, if so, how could they address the JPEC issue on their own, as you say they should have? Or do you think recusal is unnecessary so long as the Court rules as you want it to?

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Amicus Curiae on 06/16/2014 at 11:11 AM

Re: “Forget the Senate and governor races: Ron Ramsey's assault on the Tennessee Supreme Court is the most important race of the year

The TSC under Supreme Court Rule 11 and their “inherent supervisory power” and TCA §16-3-502 have a responsibility “to promote the orderly and efficient administration of justice” and to “take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice.”

Supreme Court Rule 27, 2.02, 2.03, provides that the Commission shall have “no power to waive or modify any provision of Supreme Court Rule 27 and/or TCA §17-4-201. The function of the JPEC, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 27, 1.04, is “to promote informed retention elections” and to “perform objective evaluations and to issue fair and accurate reports."

Under Supreme Court Rule 11, TCA §16-3-502 and Supreme Court Rule 27 had the “power” and the “duty” under their oaths of office to require that the members of the Commission be appropriately appointed in accordance with all the provisions of TCA §17-4-201(b).

The TSC failed to take corrective action so under Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 1, Rule 1.1 and they were acting with “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” under Rule 1.2.

When the members of the Supreme Court and all the members appellate Court accepted the “invalid recommendation” from the unlawfully composed Commission, then the members of the Supreme Court and all the appellate Judges “[abused] the prestige of Judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the Judges or others or allowed others to do so,” in violation of Supreme Court Rule 10 Canon 1 Rule 1.3.

We still have appellate Judges ruling on this case which clearly involves their own self-interest and a Governor, who is clearly prejudicial in the matter and a Defendant, who is appointing the Judges in his own case.

I mean Amicus come on, how much of this can you really defend?

0 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by tonygottlieb on 06/16/2014 at 9:37 AM

Sign Up! For the Scene's email newsletters





* required

All contents © 1995-2014 City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation