If anyone disagrees with the opinion, they should do so on a point by point basis and not on a policy basis.

It is a legal opinion, not a policy directive.

The “analysis” to which you linked is a policy-oriented rant, not a legal analysis – not even close for that matter.

The insinuation in that rant that the Sheriff has intimidated Chancellor Weaver is preposterous.

Chancellor Weaver is an exceedingly bright and analytical jurist, and it took no small amount of courage to render this unpopular opinion.

Judges (are supposed to) rule on the legality of matters before them, which are the crux of the disputed issues, and not on policy matters.

They call balls and strikes and should not set public policy.

Ironically, we conservatives complain the most when judges venture into the area of policy- oriented (e.g. the international community’s opinion on this matter is that …. or this practice violates many international laws).

Judges are supposed to determine the facts, the operative law, and the application of the law to the facts.

This case involves statutory construction – nothing more.

Judges should not issue advisory opinions and recommendations (e.g. the County Commission should ….. to cure what it failed to do in enacting the Charter).

If judges gratuitously exceed the scope of reviewing the legality of the facts before them (e.g. and make recommendations), it is usually in the form of nonbinding dicta.

Addressing what it should do now to fix what it didn’t do in 1994 is the job of the County Commission, which, for that matter, now seeks to do so AFTER the upcoming elections.

If anyone actually reads the analytical approach embodied in the opinion, I challenge them to set forth the LEGAL reasons why it is wrong.

It may be wrong, and it appears that the Tn Supreme Court will have the chance to make that determination.

However, based on my review of the opinion, I am hard pressed to make the case that the County Executive and County Commission followed the required statutory proceedures to establish a County Charter.

Quite simply, they messed it up badly (to put it charitably), and they, and not Chancellor Weaver, should remedy the situation and account to their constituents.

Lastly, the notion of severability usually applies to contracts and not to statutes, but, even if it did, it would be applied in a manner which disregards an ERRONEOUS (e.g. unconstitutional) provision – not a part of a statute that somecne consciously chose, or unwittingly failed, to follow.

FWIW, I agree with your position on home rule and the ridiculous nature of the situation in which Knox County currently finds itself.

Its elected officials (including some who are no longer in office) created this mess, and the County Mayor and the County Commission need to resolve it and account to the people of Knox County.

I hope that the Tn Supereme Court affirms this decision, but time will tell.