Ken Mortland's Blog

Ken Mortland's thoughts and ruminations Flag as Inappropriate

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. What's on your mind? What's on your mind? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Posts awaiting your approval 0
Richard Tortellini June 17, 2014 at 05:07 pm
It was to you, sir. I am a bit confused to as what your interpretation of standing requirements, andRead More if you think that you're actually making a procedural argument or really are conflating your issues here with the actual merits. In other words, assuming arguendo that students are deprived of their rights by the persistence of certain conditions at their school, you truly think that there can be no remedy at law that could cure that condition?
Richard Tortellini June 18, 2014 at 02:42 pm
Thanks for the response. It doesn't really make sense, and so I am not that interested in engagingRead More with you any more, but I do appreciate the time and effort you did put into it. One tip, if you try reading without moving your lips, you may find reading to be easier (re: the "mouthful" challenge that my comment presented).
porter gladstone III June 18, 2014 at 03:02 pm
since when does "remedy at law" apply to the legislative branch?
porter gladstone III June 15, 2014 at 09:23 pm
(2) Prohibiting action/behavior that might – at some time in the future – lead to harmRead More is called a “prior restraint”. The prohibition is being executed prior to the potential for injury. Thought of primarily as a free speech issue, the concept applies to other actions, as well. The US Supreme Court has made it clear that approval of a prior restrain carries with it a very serious burden of proof. N------------- Prior restraint? Your legal scope is way off here. Prior restraint has to do with censorship. Prohibiting action -as you say --to avoid harm? And you apply it here? Sorry dude --but youre really off base. Im guessing you read the word prior and then somehow attached the "before some kid is actually harmed" and tried to use that term? I have no idea--but it doesnt apply here. The plaintiffs in this case, need only find that they were harmed by one teacher that remained on as a result of tenure to establish their case. Not to hard to establish -and also not too hard for any court to envision. As richard tortellini says above in brown v the board of education, the plaintiffs were the parents of black children who were denied equal rights (segregation) and they argued that their children had been harmed. Read any Supreme Court case argument and , like in Indiana Voter Id cases or Brown vs Board, the courts do not need to see actual damages to be able to pass judgment on the potential for damage. ______interesting your use of prior restraint-but in those cases the courts can envision potential damage ( military strategy that has been gleaned by a reporter after having tagged along for a mission) and implement prior restraint in order to prevent damage to troops. This has no correlation to the issue of tenure here. Courts understand full well that if you have incompetent teachers , where the schools know they are incompetent but are unable to remove them because of tenure rules , that kids will be negatively affected. Not too hard. I care about kids. But my observation these days is that too many teachers view the primary beneficiary of our education system should be the teachers. How much they should make. how much pension; how much time off; job protection regardless of performance. Education should primarily be about the students. Somewhere in the last 20 years teachers think that the education system should be about themselves..
Carl Petersen III June 16, 2014 at 09:30 am
Before you go any further with Porter you might want to know what kind of person he is:Read More ___________________________________________________ Porter gladstone commented on the article "We are Not all bundy, or STERLING, OR POT SMOKERS OR rioters" you commented on inSpeak Out: you ever lick your retard daughter's p***?
porter gladstone III June 16, 2014 at 09:57 am
Bottom line-I think this decision is poorly reasoned and will not stand. That doesnt mean it's notRead More the right decision for students. But i do think the decision will be set aside, not for prior restraint or lack of standing, but rahter the evidence of teachers being bad -simply because they have tenure was not proven. Ideologically it makes sense. But evidence appears to be lacking.
See more »