Sailing76 | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Sailing76 
Member since Jun 7, 2010


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Stats

Recent Comments

Re: “Wendell Griffen: Questions 'cultural competency' in Trayvon Martin case

Judge Griffen is correct that the prosecution was inept. If you watched the trial, the verdict should not have come as a surprise. For good reason our system requires actual positive evidence for a conviction. The prosecution spent their time raising reasonable doubt about the defense. The only problem is that is not how it works to get a conviction. Too many people have simply bought into the MSM narrative on this case.

I disagree with Judge Griffen that race was a legitimate issue. The prosecution knew that race was a losing angle because there was simply no evidence of a racial animus by Zimmerman. Don't you think they scoured his background and the facts looking for it? The FBI looked into it and found nothing.

Btw, the prosecution struck the only potential black juror.

13 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Sailing76 on 08/01/2013 at 11:34 AM

Re: “Exxon Mobil's oil leak report

Hopefully the buyer had a financing contingency and the mortgage loan has not funded yet. I can't imagine the lender approving the loan under these circumstances. The property's value just took a major hit.

7 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Sailing76 on 04/01/2013 at 1:49 PM

Re: “Rapert abortion bill passes by voice vote

The budget issue for training for UAMS falls on deaf ears to me. Maybe if they would quit giving ridiculous severance packages to departing employees, they would have enough money to actually do what they are supposed to do.

6 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Sailing76 on 02/07/2013 at 2:19 PM

Re: “Details on the UAMS payout to former CFO

I'm confused at where good public servant Rahn started the negotiations for this deal. Presumably, there is less value in simply being available to answer questions while working at another job versus being an on-site employee. Did the bidding simply start at her old salary? I would fully understand some amount of payment if they expect to use her knowledge over the year, but at the old full salary? And if this position and/or knowledge is so important, why the heck would you not have a backup plan for this person's departure?

14 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Sailing76 on 01/07/2013 at 3:00 PM

Re: “Ark. Supreme Court strikes blow to equitable school funding

"Should the General Assembly wish to provide a mechanism or procedure by which excess funds may be distributed to other districts, it is certainly within its purview to do so—no time machine required." P.16-17 of the opinion.

That is not a mandate to the General Assembly to change the law. The majority is expressly stating it is up to the General Assembly on whether to make a change. Lakeview does not require it per the majority.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Sailing76 on 11/30/2012 at 3:16 PM

Re: “Ark. Supreme Court strikes blow to equitable school funding

Sorry, you are wrong. It does not have to be done. The argument that Lakeview required the state to distribute the excess funds to other districts was explicitly argued by the appellants and addressed by the majority. Lakeview does not require a change to the current law per the majority opinion. Quotes from the majority opinion:

"ADE argues that such an interpretation would violate the constraints of our decisions
in the Lake View cases, but it is again mistaken. ADE claims that permitting the school
districts from which the excess revenues came to retain those revenues would result in wealth enhanced districts in violation of our Lake View decisions. But ADE sorely misconstrues our holdings in the Lake View line of cases."
* * *
"Indeed, allowing the School Districts to retain any URT revenues in excess of the
foundation-funding amount will result in some variations, but variations were clearly
contemplated and are explicitly permitted under the plain language of art. 14, § 3."
* * *
"And further, contrary to ADE’s claims, this court has made it abundantly clear that it is not concerned solely with whether revenues are doled out equally to the districts"

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Sailing76 on 11/30/2012 at 2:57 PM

Re: “Ark. Supreme Court strikes blow to equitable school funding

Kurt, nice summary of the majority opinion, although you don't discuss the dissenting arguments. However, your statement "As long as it would be constitutional, it would be very simple to change the law during the next session." ignores history and the political process.

It will not be simple. The legislators who have school districts in their legislative district that benefit from this ruling will be under strong pressure to resist any change. Look back at the Lakeview history. The General Assembly only acted when the Supremes basically put a gun to their head. It is not popular to vote for tax redistribution and it is a hard sell to the folks back home for a legislator. Unlike the Lakeview scenario, there is now no gun to force the General Assembly to act.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Sailing76 on 11/30/2012 at 8:02 AM

All Comments »

  • Re: Dear Little Rock,

    • Outstanding stuff, Jordan! Well said.

    • on October 24, 2017
  • Re: Poz Pollyanna

    • I am so happy, i never believe i will be this happy again in life,…

    • on October 24, 2017
  • Re: The Monday Democrat-Gazette was slimmer this morning

    • Plainjim: If Hardscrabble was Bob Meriwether, I can believe those must have terrific letters. I…

    • on October 24, 2017

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation