Now that the field is narrowed and we're facing a runoff, it's suddenly a no-brainer.
The choice is SARA DOYLE.
Mike Sheffield is a member of the religious right.
"First of all, all Georgia taxpayers with any sense should vote "No" on Amendment No. 2. This is nothing but a corporate welfare handout and bailout sham for weak and inexperienced developers."
How, Dave? How is the creation of specific legislation to improve infrastructure in areas a corporate bailout? TAD legislation is meant to specifically fund capitol improvements in selected areas. It doesn't intersect with corporate responsibility at all. Mayhaps you don't know what you're talking about?
"Diverting educational use tax money to subsidize private development is a sham. It is corporate welfare and a bailout for weak developers."
TADs don't fund private development. They fund public infrastructure.
"Our school tax dollars should be used for schools. What sense does it make to give school tax dollars to real estate developers?"
TAD funds don't go into the pockets of private entities. They go to fund bonds to pay for necessary improvements. Sheesh, this place is a nest of astroturfers.
"Our property taxes are high as it is. Passage of this Amendment would only raise taxes even more."
That is absolutely not how a TAD works. TADs count on the difference between the level of funding at the point of passage versus the funding gained as values increase. There's nothing inherent in a TAD that would affect millage rates.
The least all these 'concerned advocates' could do is get their facts straight before trying to poison public discourse.
It is truly mind boggling how a person can seriously believe that health care is not a right. We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is being healthy not a component of living a happy, liberating, life? It's truly pathetic that people would rather convince themselves health is a privilege than pay additional taxes for universal health care. The issue is not funding a universal health care system (the money is there, believe me). The issue is reallocating funds so more important line items (such as universal health care) will receive the most funding and less important line items (such as a bridge to nowhere) will receive little or (gasp!) no funding and be taken out of the budget completely.
Oh yeah, government regulation is needed. We do not need to become a socialistic nation but the hands off approach of good ole Bush obviously placed our country in several binds.
I will be voting for Sara Doyle. She is competent, experienced and certainly one of the more intelligent people I've met. Sara's answers to my many questions give me confidence that I am indeed voting for the right appellate court candidate.
I am not only impressed with her professional abilities...as I watched her interact with her daughter and husband at a local gathering last weekend, I witnessed Sara's balanced and compassionate approach to her life - very impressive woman.
I have read about each of the candidates and watched the debates between the candidates. Though I agree there are a few candidates who would be fine in this role, I will be voting for SARA DOYLE. In the debates, Sara demonstrated that she is a composed, intelligent and successful lawyer who has experience in all of the types of cases that the appellate court handles every day. Sara fits the mold to what a judge should be.
Sara Doyle does not have any of the political ties that some of the other candidates have, we can trust Sara to make unbiased decisions based on the law and the facts of the case only.
Another point which resonates with me is that Sara already manages a large case load at Holland Knight, so she knows how to manage resources and deliverables efficiently and effectively. As everyone keeps saying, the Court of Appeals is one of the busiest, so we should vote for a candidate who already has years of experience managing similar case loads and resources.
Vote SARA DOYLE!
What should the voters consider? First, is the candidate held in high regard by his fellow lawyers for integrity and fair dealing? Does the candidate believe in the rule of law and will he or she follow it? What is the candidate's level of experience, intellect and aptitude for the complexities of the law? Is the candidate truly independent or too closely affiliated with one interest group or another? Has the candidate improperly signaled his predisposition on legal issues that might come before him? What has the candidate done to advance the practice of law and collegiality amoung lawyers and the judiciary?
When these factors are taken into account, Bruce Edenfield is well at the top of the seven candidates for this judgeship. He has 35 years experience as a trial and appellate lawyer. He has handled over 60 appeals in the highest courts of this state. He was an Assistant Attorney General for 5 years, and after entering private practice, he has continuously acted as a Special Assistant Attorney General under three Attorneys General---Bolton, Bowers and Baker. He is well respected by his peers garnering the most "qualified" and "well qualified" votes from the State Bar of Georgia poll. He has volunteered his time to work in a number of organizations that advance the practice of law. Bruce Edenfield has the greatest degree of well rounded legal experience of any of the other candidates, is fiercely independent and highly regarded for his integrity and objectivity. He deserves the confidence of the voters. For more information, visit www.BruceEdenfield.com.
Michael Meyer von Bremen, or MvB as he's known to his friends, is the cream of the crop. He's extremely competent, straightforward, and bright, not to mention a nice guy. He'd be a credit to the bench. And he's not an ideologue, or a silk-stocking lawyer.
Election of a judge is not a popularity contest, a lifetime achievement award or a contest for who has tried the most cases, handled the most appeals or been in public service the longest. Rather the voter is deciding who will make the best judge. I submit to you that the best judges are those that are smart, hardworking and independent. Additionally for the Court of Appeals, which is one of the busiest courts in the country, you need someone who has experience with the substantive areas of the law reviewed by the Court and who can oversee a large case load to make sure that decisions are rendered in a timely and efficient manner. Sara Doyle (me) brings all of these qualifications to the table. I graduated at the top of my law school class, I have experience trying cases and handling appeals, I have worked on virtually every type of substantive civil legal issue heard by the Court of Appeals and as an equity partner at Holland & Knight, one of the largest law firms in the country, I am the only candidate with the experience of leading a team of attorneys to move a large case load efficiently through the court system. This is legal experience that is needed on the Court of Appeals. For more information, see my website at www.votesaradoyle.com. To compare all of the candidates, watch the October 20 debate found on Georgia Public Broadcast's website.
Obama is the best "Candidate" for the job, weather you think the USA has any hope of redeeming itself or not, Obama has the metal power to handle more 21st century "issues" -- The fact that he doesn't have "experience" (as negative campaigning against him will critize), makes him less corrupt and more suitable for handling a nation that hates it's own government. A government that kills 3,000 of its own people to start a war. aka Sept 911. That was a slap in the face. We are governed by an elite group of very greedy and corrupt individuals. I want answers. I want change. Anyway......I want someone like Obama running the country, not McCain.
My pick is Michael Meyer von Bremen. He's practiced for 25 years (has a thriving practice in Albany), he's served in the state senate for 10 years with distinction, he's backed by both democrats and republicans, and his integrity is beyond reproach--a real class act.
On top of that he's an extremely cool and normal guy, i.e. he's fair and won't think he's the next incarnation of God when he puts on a black robe.
Unlike the other candidates who have very narrow focuses (Adkins--divorce law only (which Court of Appeals doesn't even hear); McFadden--only appeals; McGuire-corporate law only), he's had tons of diverse and real world experience. He's represented both plaintiffs and defendants, he's tried scores of cases before juries, he's appeared before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, he's handled corporate transactions and real estate deals, he's represented poor clients and wealthy ones.
MCFADDEN...not even close. Don't throw a dart, this is a seat for the highest court in our state. Go with experience and the person who wrote a book that other lawyers use about how to handle cases in our court of appeals... Chris McFadden!!!
Chris McFadden is the most experienced appellate lawyer seeking the job. He has handled more appeals than all the other candidates put together. He wrote the book on Georgia Appeals, literally! He is highly recommended by the lawyers of Georgia. He is very honest and fair.
Christopher McFadden's abilities, history and credentials make it an easy choice. Based on the criteria Thomas Wheatley laid out, "...but should you contest a decision rendered against you in court, you'd want the most qualified jurist hearing your case. It's another example of why electing judges is so problematic: They become popularity contests not necessarily based on which person will apply the law most fairly."
Chris has more appellate experience than the sum of all the other six candidates combined. The book he coauthored is the preeminent resource used for all of Georgia Appellate law--including his opponents. He is honest and meticulous in his approach both to law and life, active in the community and committed to making the right choice at the right time based on the letter of the law, and the spirit in which it was enacted.
When you get to that slot on the ballot, I urge you to select Christopher McFadden.
"The 25-year legal veteran boasts name recognition as well as a giant campaign billboard near the Spaghetti Junction. Does popularity make a good Court of Appeals judge? Not necessarily."
If billboard-based fame guaranteed you a slot on the bench, Tamela Adkins of "Uncontested Divorces $500" on 85N from back in the 90's fame would win in a landslide.
I've only seen one in practice: Edenfield, and he was extremely sharp, boring yard signs and odd TV ads notwithstanding.
Atlanta, Atlanta, Atlanta!!!! I realize that this is an Atlanta-based website, but as a resident of rural northwest Georgia who is seeking both facts (i.e. the original text of the amendments)and (educated) opinions concerning this amendment, I would like to know how this particular amendment would work for the benefit or the detriment of public education/ development projects in areas OTHER than Atlanta. Georgia is, as I recall from my eighth-grade Georgia history class, the biggest state east of the Mississippi River. There are many other school systems /development projects in this vast state--urban, suburban, and rural. Please consider them too, and what is best for not just one metropolitan area (albeit the biggest), but the whole state. Opinions, please?
Here, read the actual senate bill yourself:
Wow, this is pathetic. Everyone with their glossy eyes looking up to Obama as their savior. All you have to do is hand over massive amounts of power to federal government. HOW COULD THAT FAIL?!
Listen, I can't stand McCain, Bush sucked a fat one, and the republicans are a failure. But do yall honestly think the Democrats are going to do better? Who has been in control of Congress in recent times? Congress are the biggest failures of all.
If you are a Obama supporter, I can't blame you. The supposed only other choice >>(a lie) has been a failure. But please, do yourself, your kids, and your country a favor and REMOVE THE HAZE FROM YOUR EYES. Please be vigilant when he is office. Don't let him and his cronies pass whatever they want and cheer it on as change.
Please keep an eye on the fairness doctrine (google it if you don't know what it is). Think about it, if you hand this power over to feds now, while they are controlled by your preferred party, you might like it..."Yeah! Screw Rush Limbaugh!!!!11".
But what is going to happen when a more extreme ideology gets a hold of the fed? Do you really want the idea of "fairness" controlled our government? Wouldn't it be best to just allow everyone to speak their mind and let individuals make their own choices? Don't hand the government this level of censorship. It will expand, it always does.
The fairness doctrine is an unapologetic assault on the first amendment. Free speech is essential to a free society. Don't even let them play with it.
Please remove the gloss. Take off the rose colored glasses once he is in office. Don't trust the media to give you the full story. Be skeptical. Change is not necessarily a good thing.
"...taxing people for the purpose of redistributing wealth is un-American and wrong."
3 comments are in order:
1. When we start taxing people, rather than borrowing from China, you might have an argument under the heading of "wrong."
2. We already take money from the treasury via a tax exemption for employer health plans. This is a subsidy to insurance companies. Your choices are limited to those that give your employer the best deal.
3. "Un-American?" If that's so, why did the founders encode "Promote the General Welfare" into the pre-amble, and give Congress almost unlimited powers to regulate the economy? The question is better debated on the facts (is it wrong?), rather than first principles.
I'm really tired of healthcare being addressed in the way Ron has here. If people cannot get healthcare through their employers (because let's face it----the economy is pretty lousy and companies have to cut back where they can) they can buy an individual policy right? Nope, not in GA or many other states. If you have a pre-existing condition and want to buy health insurance in GA you just can't. I've tried. And mind you the pre-existing condition I have requires this: 1 pill a day and one visit to the doctor a year. That's it. NOTHING else. For 20 years----since elementary school---- this is what it has required.
So say my company has to lay me off because of the economy. Then I can get COBRA (which runs about $400-500 a month for my current, very basic BCBS HMO) for about a year then. If I can afford it. And considering the state of the economy I might have a hard time finding a job (even though I am Bilingual, have a degree from a well respected college, a good resume and references). I'd take a job flipping burgers or bagging groceries or cleaning bathrooms if need be while looking for a job in my field (or that offered insurance) but that likely wouldn't pay for my COBRA, and very basic living expenses.
Continuing with this hypothetical, I would face the decision of eating or taking care of my health as so many do. Either choice is going to effect my health in a negative way and increase the health problems I'll have in the future. So what then? Go to Grady (pray that Grady is still there?) and see if they will help with my health needs? Try and qualify for some sort of assistance?
I'm not an economist but it seems that government involvement of some sort in the healthcare crisis is necessary. If unemployed and forced to take a few part time jobs with low pay I could struggle and make it if someone would just sell me health insurance. If not I become a burden on all of those tax payers who don't see the importance of healthcare access for all.
First of all, all Georgia taxpayers with any sense should vote "No" on Amendment No. 2. This is nothing but a corporate welfare handout and bailout sham for weak and inexperienced developers.
Edelstein, you say you deleted three posts which were contrary to your position on Amendment No. 2 because the posters were "imposters"?
What a pathetic excuse for removing substantive argument contrary to your own opinion. Are the Easons aware you operate this way in Atlanta? Perhaps the Tampa headquarters should be more aware of the embarrassing way you operate in Atlanta.
Indeed, Creative Loafing has now hit rock bottom. Not only because of the recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, but because of childish editorial actions such as yours.
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation