- Quickdraw McLaw
- 14 Comments
- 230 Views
- The Supreme Court says the name of the execution doctor stays secret. [ABC News]
- The man who sold ammo to the October 1 shooter pleaded not guilty. [LasVegasNow]
- Never forget. Where were you that Tuesday morning 17 years ago? [Las Vegas Sun]
Construction defect trial was going on in Judge Denton's court. There were something like 15 or 20 parties in the case. On September 11, 2001 the lawyers showed up for court. Denton told us to go home.
Serving aboard a US Navy warship on westpac. Did an emergency recall of the crew on liberty because I was on duty that day. Didn't see any video of the attack for a few days (no sat TV on my ship back then). Left port and we took the marines to the coast of Pakistan, watched the tomahawks fly.
Denton is amazing.
There was some discussion yesterday about how approachable and personable Judge Cadish is or is not. I'm not taking a positon on way or the other and I don't personally think it matters that much.
This is a byproduct of forcing judges to run to retain their sets, or in the case of Cadish, to obtain a higher seat. We expect them to be politicians and we judge them accordingly.
If she were running for the state legislature, the county commission, or a myriad of other political bodies, this dialogue about her being inapproachable or inaccessible would, IMO, have a lot of merit.
But by being one of the states that force judges to run as if they are politicians, kind of creates a false narrative that we should judge them as politicians, rather than limiting the discussion to their judicial/legal skills.
Now, colleagues I discussed this with disagree with me, and I suppose most others would as well. The colleagues point out that even though it may be that judges should not be forced to run, that such is the process we have always had, and therefore anyone who runs must have the sense to know that they will be judged for their personality, accessibility and approachability, just like any other politicians. In other words, in this state judges should realize they are politicians as well as judges. IMO that is unfortunate and blurs the lines, and I always naively believed to keep the judiciary as separate as possible from these other elements. But if they run just like legislatures, they will be lobbied and manipulated just like legislatures–at least when running for the higher judicial seats.
These colleagues, who take delight in always telling me how wrong I am, point out that one need not sacrifice judicial acumen, independence and integrity to also excel at the political arena. By way of example, I do agree with them that former Judge Stewart Bell, as well as Justice Mike Cherry and others, proved one can excel at their judicial positons while also being able to connect very well with voters.
It's petty.
No, it isn't.
I also think it's unfortunate, in some respect, that we have the election process for judges.
But appointing judges is no panacea. It is hardly the silver bullet that eliminates politics from the process. The issue is very nuanced.
Politics casts a dark shadow over the appointment process, albeit a somewhat different political dynamic than the politics involved in the election process.
We've had good and bad elected judges, and good and bad appointed judges. The one thing I will say in support of the appointment process is that the vetting process, starting on the commission level, is pretty exhaustive so we can hopefully assume no real odd balls with questionable pasts make the cut. And if somehow they do, and they are one of the three finalists, then there is another vetting opportunity with the Governor's inner circle.
But with the election process, there is really not that type of safeguard to screen out some real oddball types. But on second thought, as long as they are in good standing with the Bar and qualified to run, someone who seems like an oddball to one person may seem endearingly eccentric to someone else.
And one can(arguably) be eccentric in certain regards and still be an effective judge.
And I do agree with the colleagues of 10:17 who indicate that intelligent judges and judicial candidates know that this is the life they have chosen and the process they must work within. In other words, they better understand that in addition to being a solid judge, you also need to be a solid campaigner who can connect with people on a personal level.
I have been at several social events along with Judge Cadish, and I have been introduced to her several times. If fact, we have mutual friends who are judges. She always acts as if she has no idea who I am, and she never tries to engage me in conversation. Is she shy? Probably. Is she a great politicians? Certainly not. But does any of that really impact on whether she is a fair judge?
You did not give her enough money.
You have hit upon a key issue 12:07. She is socially shy. She does not engage well in person on a social level. But she is whip
smart about the law and its application. If people do not like her demeanor on the bench because they believe her social anxiety manifests is being too assertive on the bench, I will respect that even though I have not seen it. I have never seen her being anything other than judicially courteous to those who have shown her courtesy.
To: 12:07.
10:17 and 10:50 seem to suggest it does not matter, and that only her judicial performance matters.
Perhaps, but I am admittedly troubled by the fact you were introduced to her several times and that in addition to not remembering you, she never once attempted small talk or to exchange pleasantries. Does this impact or undermine her judicial knowledge and performance? Not directly.
However, any sort of display of arrogance by public officials, whereby they resent interacting with people they meet, ultimately does tend to taint their perspective of the challenges and hardships of the average hard-working
Nevadans.
I've known Cadish since her clerking days. She is not arrogant. She is extremely reserved. She just doesn't do small talk well, even with people she's known for decades. She will be a terrific appellate judge.
10:17 here again. When I raised the point about judicial elections vs. appointments, I didn't really mean to generate or encourage a debate about the social/campaigning skills of a particular judge or candidate. I did mention Cadish because she was mentioned in the previous day's blogs, as to her campaigning approach.But I feel bad that the ensuing discussion seems to focus specifically upon Judge Cadish.
I was only hoping to make a much broader point about elections vs. appointments. I have no particular knowledge or concerns about how Judge Cadish campaigns or how sociable she is. And even if I did, I wasn't trying to make my point by focusing on a particular individual.
To: 1:48: That is because we in the legal profession(and I mean all of us at various times) can be hyper-sensitive, as so many things are personalized, really aggressive, and the stakes are often quite high.
As a result of this, whenever someone on this blog extends criticism of a process, or even when they merely offer suggestions or observations, it seems to be interpreted that the blogger dislikes some judicial officer at the center of such process, and that the blogger must dislike the judge because the blogger must have lost in front of the judge.
I understood that you were not primarily concerned about Judge Cadish, but were making a point about elections vs. appointments. But once you invoked her name, that's all anyone could focus on. They didn't care about judicial elections vs. appointments. It then only mattered whether they supported this particular individual or not.
Aside from the fact that we can be overly sensitive, and are that way in large part due to the super-charged aggressive profession we practice in, another problem, ironically, is that lawyers don't really read all that well.
You see this when they assign the opposition a faulty or straw man argument the opposition never really advanced, and then knock it down. Now, admittedly, that approach is often effective lawyering–to define the other side before he/she can define their own a narrative–and then knock them down. But far more often, it's caused by a lack of sufficient reading comprehension.
These posts are a case in point. Clearly, there is no pressure here, no litigation, so there is really no excuse for problems with reading and interpretation. Yet no matter how often the relative strengths of weaknesses of appointment vs. election are discussed, posters keep weighing in as to the pros and cons of Judge Cadish.