newsobserver.com projects - Bill Faison - Comments

Re: The tobacco-filled room

robdarich — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:54:45 -0400

killing us softly with their songs, killing us softly...

Re: The tobacco-filled room

Jimblackmustgo — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:26:51 -0400

Can we get that fella to be Governor? I can't understand how Guv. Purdue wants to protect jobs by taxing us to death. Message to Guv. Purdue: stay outta my wallett, my backyard and my cooler!!!

Re: House not ready for deaf jurors

tpgrad — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:18:56 -0400

I can't believe, we in NC, are so far behind the times that we can not allow persons with disabilities to become jurors. Those in the legislature that are arguing to not have deaf jurors are the same ones that are running this state into the ground. I was born in SC and have a deaf sister two years younger than myself. In the late 60's she was put into a room at school with all severely mentally disabled students and received no education. So, when my father was asked to start up a new Engineering office here in Raleigh in the early 70's, he jumped at it. The services for deaf students were much better here and my sister was able to go to a regular public school in Cary and receive a good education, with special services for deaf students. She has battled this kind of thing her whole life, even being turned down to be a lifeguard. Well, a few years later she set 7 world records for the deaf in swimming. Tell me she wouldn't have made a great lifeguard. She was more observant than half my fellow lifeguards I worked with at the time.
We have got to get on the band wagon and start accepting that deaf persons are just as capable, if not more capable at some things, than those of us that can hear. Below is a bill that was passed long ago in SC to allow deaf jurors. Are we further behind than SC? That's scary!!

TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-810, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REASONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JURORS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO IS BLIND, HEARING OR SPEECH IMPAIRED, OR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED MAY NOT BE DISQUALIFIED TO ACT AS A JUROR OR BE EXCLUDED FROM A JURY LIST OR JURY SERVICE BECAUSE OF THESE HANDICAPS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 15-27-110, RELATING TO INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN INTERPRETER BE PROVIDED WHEN A DEAF PERSON IS A JUROR AND PROVIDE CRITERIA FOR THE USE OF AN INTERPRETER WHEN USED TO ASSIST A DEAF JUROR.

Re: House not ready for deaf jurors

cdtew — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:31:05 -0400

As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as "section 508" compliance with regards to jurors, jury selection, court hearings, or anything judicial other than access to the courts' electronic information.

Whats at issue is not really ADA compliance -- this would be a "spirit of the law" question with the ADA. What this is really about is that the court system is underfunded as it is. Adding another service the courts would have to provide would either mean a) the legislature has to increase the courts' budget from the pittance its already getting, or b) the courts would be unable to comply with an unfunded mandate, and the AOC would be swamped in its own compliance troubles.

As a person in the legal profession, it strikes me that there are times when a lawyer would absolutely not want a deaf juror, and would be forced to spend a valuable peremptory challenge on excusing that juror. Such might be the case when a witness or party in the action is unconvincing and exhibits certain vocal tendencies which lead people not to trust him or her.

A vast amount of information is conveyed to a juror based on how a witness or party says something on the stand, and that information is then used by the juror to determine how credible the witness is, in their own opinions.

Now, this isn't to say that deaf jurors (or blind jurors for that matter) shouldn't be used ever, but I think this issue needs to take a back burner until both the Court system in this state receives more than alms from the GA, and until a suitable technology can be implemented to aid disabled jurors.

Maybe 20 more innocent victims will get killed by men out on probation for their prior crimes, and then the GA will realize that the courts need reform, just not THIS reform.

Making the courts comply with a rushed, unfunded mandate at a time like this is just sheer stupidity.

Re: House not ready for deaf jurors

kevin_smith5 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:35:56 -0400

I'm nt following why a deaf person can't be a juror....we have deaf lawyers, doctors, actors....with a sign language interpretor they will "hear" everything a lawyer says, so why object?

Re: House not ready for deaf jurors

robdarich — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:32:05 -0400

The audible component of legal action dates way back - as in: why do you think they call it a "Hearing".

Relying on audible noises firmly establishes a 3rd world country - that is stuck in the middle ages. Oh yeah, and NC too.

If jurors were also blind, they might have trouble convicting black people(smirk). Otherwise, it's a monster-huge expense to retrofit a legal system so it is accessible by those with disabilities.

Too bad our country was supposed to be founded on a fair legal system - so much gets spewed to politicial favors that the foundation's kind-of shot. The only consistent performer in NC - is corruption. I guess accessiblilty to the legal system will have to wait.

It's also odd that fat-cat lawyer/legislators are discussing how taxpayers should assist their livelihood (anyone want to reference Faison's campaign expenditures?)

If the legislators are not talking 508 compliance for everyone, then the subject's really just about greedy, self-rewarding, flim-flam practitioners. Typical NC...

Re: Finance passes $784m tax package

PaulTerrell — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:14:26 -0400

This fall and next year if you like these local and state TAX INCREASES for a bloated government(s), please vote Democratic. If you support a lean and well run government(s), then vote Republican.

Re: Finance passes $784m tax package

domewatcher — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:04:45 -0400

The article states: "Committee members shot down a series of proposed amendments, arguing that the new taxes were needed to avoid painful cuts in state spending."

Well now, we would not want any "pain" because we cut state spending. State spending levels are supposed to go up, not down. What is wrong with those who want to cut? Cutting is negative. That's what we've got, a bunch of negative people. "Never let them see you sweat!" And never reduce state spending. Once you have got the spending in place your only choice is to raise spending. That's in the Bible! Never retreat!

Raising taxes and spending money is the path to true happiness. And raising taxes and spending more and more money will end global warming and speed up the internet.

Re: Posturing

Jimblackmustgo — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:47:26 -0400

This is comical at best. The world economy is suffering from a collapse of an unregulated market that encouraged irresponsible investing behavior and as a result...wait for it, let's hammer the NASCAR fans who want a cold beer while they enjoy a race. I love the argument about choice...why do we all pay taxes for schools if we don't "choose" to have kids? Why don't we have an obseity tax for fast food? Pass cuts on everyone and pass a sales tax on everyone and go back to work and leave our beer alone!!!

Re: Posturing

Gosh — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:47:50 -0400

Taxing tobacco and alcohol is the best kind of taxation because it both raises necessary revenue by taxing luxuries AND reduces state expenditures for the homicides, accidents, medical care, and prison time caused by use of alcohol and tobacco.

Festus, either there's a linguistic fallacy in your logic or you think tobacco results in homicide and prison time.

But I know what you meant. Given that, let's put a luxury tax on Hardee's too. It aint exactly health food.

Re: Finance passes $784m tax package

yeshoneyitsgreat — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:58:29 -0400

We STATE EMPLOYEES work our butts off to take care of the public. Obviously you do not walk in our shoes. Get real Crudeoil!!

Re: Finance passes $784m tax package

Crudeoil — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:55:53 -0400

HOW ABOUT GETTING RID OF SOME OF THE QUARTER MILLION STATE EMPLOYEE'S DOING NOTHING BUT THEIR NEXT DAY OFF OR COMP TIME.

Posturing

festus — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:22:31 -0400

Removing $154m from this tax bill was irresponsible. Faison et al will have to raise taxes elsewhere. Taxing tobacco and alcohol is the best kind of taxation because it both raises necessary revenue by taxing luxuries AND reduces state expenditures for the homicides, accidents, medical care, and prison time caused by use of alcohol and tobacco. I deeply regret this posturing.

Re: Finance passes $784m tax package

JPQuick — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:16:04 -0400

The argument from Ms. Perdue and House Democrats now appears to be that higher personal income taxes, business taxes, and consumption taxes are North Carolina's key to renewed growth and prosperity. As an added bonus, the legislature has dramatically expanded the complexity of the corporate tax code.

Likely outcomes of Ms. Perdue's enlightened tax policy include reduced domestic consumption, reduced private investment, and additional capital flight to other states.

The proposed budget is injurious to the economy and insulting to the intelligence of the people of this state.

To my everlasting regret, I voted for Ms. Perdue during the last election cycle. I will not make the same mistake in the next election cycle.

Re: Faison's son

bnartist — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:32:07 -0400

Abstinence didn't work for Adam & Eve. It's been downhill ever since.