Nashville's Online Source for Daily News
Search Site
Letter to the Editor
Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 9:59pm
Judge [John] Nixon's decision is very interesting to say the least. This is how our court system works. Can you imagine judging lawyers' financial status on each side rather than the case at hand? The small law firm against the mega firms that represent affluent individuals and companies happens every day. The difference in this case is [Metro Nashville Public Schools] does not need this extra expense. How can a judge suddenly make this decision after months of hearings and financial burden on both sides? The truth is the plaintiffs have had plenty of time to present their case and to get outside sources financially involved. Is Judge Nixon trying to build this/his case instead of letting the system work?
Posted by Carol Williams
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Technorati
Filed under: City Voices
Taken out of context, this "LTE" raises more questions than it answers. A link to the original story might help to clear things up. With no background on the story, I hesitate to comment.
Everything about Judge Nixon is interesting. From who
recommended him to the Federal Bench (Unnamed former
senators) , to the strange handling of most cases he's handled,
especially dealth penalty cases(never saw one
he didn't won't to reverse). In this case lawyers apparently
found one set of parents to stand in as Plantiff's. Now the Judge
thinks since Metro has a few more attorneys than the one firm representing plantiffs, a time out should be called, so they can solicit more legal help.
He's a Judicial joke now, yesterday, and before he was ever appointed!
Good morning
http://www.public-domain-photos.com/free-stock-photos-4/landscapes/sky/sunrise-3.jpg
Great photos Nemo, as usual!
When the plaintiffs lose, they should be on the hook for all costs associated with this case.
house-
At the risk of getting personal, how are the kids and how did you do during snow days?
My girl just turned 4, so she's still in daycare. But I was stuck at home with her last Monday.
Loner, Nixon is an ultra-liberal. He was appointed by Jimmy Carter I believe.
He doesn't preside over anything, he injects his biases into cases. He is stalling one now, that he doesn't think is going his way. Forget conservatives, many liberals feels the guy needs to step down and spend more time with his family.
While snowed in, we spent our time well, Nemo...
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=172688632772599&set=a.121458184562311.7676.100000943894209
I could not pull it up, house.
That's odd. Works just fine on my end.
It must be me. ;-(
Try this one...
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=357573&l=0874e4151f&id=100000943894209
I do not know why there are so many comments about this case. Nixon has already made the decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
That is funny house. I got to go to work.
Thanks to Tricky Dick, the name "Nixon" is forever associated with Republican dirty tricks....maybe this John Nixon guy is over-reacting to the left, so as to give the surname some legacy balance. At those lofty levels, a legal eagle's legacy is a prime concern.
Hey, the guy was trying to drum up business for local legal firms...a jobs-creating initiative from a liberal...he should be applauded, no?
No no Loner, we have ambulances for that.
slacker - But it is easier & cheaper for a judge to send you the clients, than chasing an ambulance!
bfra, those lawyers need to work on their cardio.
Where is House_of_pain with his snappy one-Liners? This board needs some more comedic relief.
A lawyer jogs into a Bar Association...
Food for thought......
For those conservatives who constantly moan about the government using "other people's money", I'd like to point pout that every time any of us take out a loan, we are using "other people's money".
Whether it's pur mortgage, car loan, bill consolidation loan, home improvement loan or student loan.....whatever...all loans use "other people's money". Nothing inherently evil about that. Credit and loans underpin modern capitalism.
When a church group, charity or NGO takes up a collection for a needy cause, that too is using "other people's money". Again, no inherent evil there.
Why, in principle, should the People's government be prohibited from using "other people's money", as its citizen constituents do?
Yes, when a duly elected government levies taxes and uses the money to fund lawful programs, that too is an example of using "other people's money" and it is a legitimate, Constitutionally authorized function of government. This duty has been demonized.
Right-wing demagogues need to give that viral phrase a rest; it was never a valid criticism of the role and purview of governance and governments. It was a catchy phrase that infected the dialogue....hopefully the rhetorical virus has run its course in the body politic.
Pardon my typos above...lost my reading glasses....no spellcheck here.
Would that be a gay, piano bar association, House? Might as well throw that old chestnut in there...
Loner, I don't see the correlation. When you borrow money for a mortgage or auto loan, you are obligated to pay it back with interest.
The government does pay it back, Slacker, they call them US Savings Bonds, US Bonds, Municipal Bonds etc. That's if it borrows and of course, it certainly does. Will it ever all be paid back? IMO, probably, if not certainly never.
Revenues from taxation are an example of "other people's money". Borrowed funds, to cover payrolls, lawful obligations, entitlements etc. are also an example of "other people's money". No big deal....why the hype over the very idea of government using other people's money? It's the misuse of public revenues that we should all object to.
My point is that there is nothing particularly mystifying or terrifying about the idea that governments use other people's money...but the right-wing demagogues have somehow demonized the notion and object to it in principle.
Is that any more clear, Slack?
I think I finally grasped it Loner. I think the right-wing demagogues, & left wing liberal progressives, both criticize the govt. spending of other peoples money. No?
The sweat-stained term , "other people's money", is getting annoyingly boring, IMO.
The common ground here is that all sides want these revenues to be spent wisely; in a way that does the most good for the most number of people for the longest period of time.
Everyone wants the government to look for the most economical way to achieve our collective goals.
"Other people's money" is also our money...it is my money and it is your money too. We all have a stake in the economy, efficiency and efficacy of public expenditures. Too often, the right wing tries to portray the left as being pro-taxation, pro-waste and pro-inefficiency in governance.....and that is simply not the case.
The problem becomes: Whose programs do you cut? Therein lies the rub. Civility can provide the needed lubricant to reduce the friction of competing agendas and priorities in an era of decreasing resources. We can work these things out.
John Nixon, Avon Williams and George Barrett are directly responsible for the horrible shape the Davidson County Public School System is in. That triad of numb nuts is the cause of its ruination.
house_of_pain,
If your daughter is four years old you shouldn't consider yourself in a "house of pain" to "baby sit" with her all day. When you reach adulthood you should remember it as one of the happiest days of your life.
Loner,
I agree with you when we take out a loan it's like the government using taxpayers money except... we pay it back. The government only spends it.
In a July 1854 essay, Abraham Lincoln wrote: “Why ... should we have government? Why not each individual take to himself the whole fruit of his labor, without having any of it taxed away?” He answered his own question by saying: “The legitimate object of government, is to do for the people whatever they need to have done, but which they can not do, at all, or can not do, so well, for themselves - in their separate and individual capacities .... There are many such things ... roads, bridges and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools ... the criminal and civil [justice] departments.”
In the same essay, Lincoln made this observation: “The best framed and best administered governments are necessarily expensive.” In other words: in government, as in life, you get what you pay for.