Harwell/Ramsey Grand jury indictment?

[thundersnow]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/26/grand-jury-says-harwell-ramsey-indicted/16290415/?sf31655526=%5B%271%27%5D

[leroy]

Red meat for the children...

 

leroy

[DaveTN]

How are people on the commission selected? Were there qualified women that wanted to be on the commission?
How would the interests of the public be served by indicting the Lt. Governor and the Speaker?

[Dustbuster]

As you know Dave most grand jury stuff is under wraps I find it interesting that it was revealed that anyone can go in front of the grand jury and get an indictment that simple act scares the crap out of lawyers prosecutors and especially DAs as it is the only check in the check and balance system to be used when a DA won't do their job. All that Glenn funk runs into more scenarios similar to this especially after the guy who replaced stayed lame for so long.
I think the simple fact that anyone can go in front of a grand jury to get an indictment is a wonderful thing the worst thing is not enough people know about it or how to do it
I have seen it done in the past by average citizens who never failed to get there indictment I think it's great that this was published

[leroy]

I'm no Harwell/Ramsey fan; but think Ramsey was exactly right... It's a far-fetched political stunt pulled off by John J Hooker; and kept alive by that paragon of non-biased reporting, The Nashville Tennesseean...

 

Check this out....http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2014/09/30/confusion-continues-unusual-grand-jury-move/16502091/

 

Check this one out too....http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/frank-daniels/2014/09/28/will-nashvilles-new-da-ignore-grand-jury/16338973/

 

Hooker is an old geezer (...born 1930...) and democrat political operative (...sorta...) who remembers when Tennessee was reliably democrat... He was the Democratic candidate for governor a couple of times; but he lost; i think, because he was too nutty for the "new deal" conservative democrats (...there actually were some... Ned McWerter and Frank Clemmett come to mind; they were elected....) that populated the state from the Tennessee River west... He evidently was the "citizen presenter" on this particular Grand Jury...

 

This is nothin but a political stunt (...to use Ramsey's words...) and a far-faced attempt at criminalizing the actions of the opposing political party's normal political job activities... Nobody gives a damn about the appointments to the judicial performance review board in the first place; i've never heard of them hearing a complaint...

 

Further, i doubt the "pool" of qualified personnel to sit on this review board whose composition is supposed to monitor the demographic makeup of the state actually does so to begin with.... Said another way; there probably ain't enough candidates of each demographic persuasion to have a homogeneous and correct pool...

 

I think it's an attempt at Texas state dirty politics brought to Tennessee ALA the Rick Perry/Tom DeLay thing...

 

leroy

Edited October 2, 2014 by leroy

[Hershmeister]

What a misleading headline - the grand jury does not indict buy then says it should have indicted and the paper leads with a headline suggesting they will indict? Crazy

[leroy]

What a misleading headline - the grand jury does not indict buy then says it should have indicted and the paper leads with a headline suggesting they will indict? Crazy

 

They are keepin it in the "news"... That's what they want to do... It paints a negative view of the autocratic, untouchable republicans now in power...

 

leroy

Edited October 2, 2014 by leroy

[Grunt67]

How is this a 2nd Amend. issue?

[cybernorris]

It parallels his assertion that the selection of the TN Supreme Court is unconstitutional… which it is… which is why there's a constitutional amendment on the ballot to make the constitution match what's been happening for decades.

[Oh Shoot]

It parallels his assertion that the selection of the TN Supreme Court is unconstitutional… which it is… which is why there's a constitutional amendment on the ballot to make the constitution match what's been happening for decades.

 

Referendum is to let gov pick the Supremes, and legislature approve or not, which seems to be different from current practice.  What exactly does our Constitution call for?

 

- OS

Edited October 10, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Worriedman]

Article VI § 3. Supreme court judges

The Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the State. The Legislature shall have power to prescribe such rules as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of section two of this article. Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be thirty-five years of age, and shall before his election have been a resident of the State for five years. His term of service shall be eight years.

 

It really is sad that the document that is supposed to be the map our lives with respect to government is so little known.  No wonder they get away with so much...

Edited October 15, 2014 by Worriedman