- Quickdraw McLaw
- 37 Comments
- 140 Views
From a press release:
CARSON CITY, Nev., Nov. 13, 2019 – Chief Justice Mark Gibbons announced the Nevada Supreme Court accepted the 80,000 case with the filing of Patel v. Patel, a civil appeal from the Family Division of Clark County’s Eighth Judicial District Court.
“Eighty-thousand cases is a noteworthy signpost for the Nevada Supreme Court and shows how important our effort is to the state,” said Chief Justice Gibbons. “As our caseload grows, the issues presented to the court are more complex, precedent-setting, and demand added time to consider.”
The number of cases filed with the Clerk of the Court reflects the size of the Supreme Court. Nevada had three Supreme Court justices and managed its workload with that number until population growth in the 1960s. In 1967, the Nevada Legislature enlarged the Supreme Court from three to five justices. In 1999, with Nevada being the fastest growing state in the nation, it expanded the Supreme Court to seven members.
Nevada voters approved the Court of Appeals in 2014. This unique court hears cases assigned to it by the Supreme Court. This allows the seven justices to consider the most complex cases.
“In 2019, we received a record number of case filings, deposed of a record number of cases, and compared with last year, saw a reduction in the pending case backlog,” said Chief Justice Gibbons. “These results show a commitment to maintaining our work at a superior level.”
The first 10,000 cases filed in the court were between October 31, 1864 and August 12, 1977, a period of 113 years. Between 1977 and August 13, 2007, 40,000 cases were filed. On January 9, 2012, the court reached 60,000 cases. Filing number 70,000 came on March 18, 2016. The 80,000 filing came three years and eight months later.
It shows how fucked up our judges are in this state.
10:20 is being abusive and perjorative.
However, notice that I have not taken direct issue with the validity of such statement by 10:20.
It may be vicious, gratuitous, not at all constructive, but….
Truth is not vicious, bro.
Puts into perspective how rare published opinions are.
What percentage of the justices' time is spent attending events where they gather to congratulate themselves and receive congratulations from sycophants, lackeys, and other brownnosers? 75%? 80%?
This
Things we can't do: proofread a press release. They "deposed" of cases?
Almost everyone outside the conservative media bubble seems to think yesterday's impeachment hearings were good for Democrats and bad for Republicans. I could not disagree more. There was nothing in yesterday's hearings that will change anybody's minds, and that will certainly be true throughout all the hearings in the coming weeks. At the end of the hearings, Trump's approval rating will have held steady at 41%, and the number of Americans who support impeachment and removal will still be slightly below 50%. It is a near certainty that Trump will survive this. The Democrats are wasting their time and taking on needless and unnecessary political liability.
You don't need to remove him from office. He won't get reelected if his approval rating is 40% in November 2020. If you get the independents and never-Trump republicans to vote D or stay home, that's a win.
Disagree.
The President abused his power for personal gain. The House has a constitutional duty and obligation to pursue impeachment, even if the Senate won't convict because they're too scared of Trump's base.
And, what exactly, is accomplished by that 11:21? That does nothing to protect our institutions. If anything, it will strengthen the bond between Trump and his base and will probably help him win re-election. If that's true (and it is), this impeachment exercise can only harm the country. These hearings are a total waste of time.
You're saying that it is "a waste of time" to investigate and publicize violations of the US Constitution? I have seen Congress do a lot of wasteful things over the years (such as everything Benghazi-related), but forcefully making a statement that we will not tolerate extortion and misuse of power? That's not a waste of time. That's something that needs to be done even if it doesn't change anything.
11:25, could you imagine if the House sat on their hands and did nothing? Even if you think the Senate won't yield 2/3, the look would be terrible. I can see it now, the do-nothing Dems can't even get their act together to initiate impeachment proceedings against a clear abuse of power for the President's personal gain (and that goes against US policy of aiding countries being harassed by Russia).
The political risk of doing nothing finally outweighed the political risk of losing the impeachment trial in the Senate. Also, there is no reason why the House leadership should lose in the Senate. The President took actions that (1) were contrary to US policy, (2) for his own person gain, and (3) invited foreign influence in yet another presidential election. That's appalling and is absolutely grounds for impeachment. The fact that Trump has the entire GOP scared of him doesn't mean the House's impeachment proceedings shouldn't happen.
I'm just waiting to see what happens when 45 ignores all the court orders telling him to release is financial info. Then we get to do this all over again.
To 11:38's point, the American people voted in 2018 to swing the House democratic. One of the main reasons why Democrats were so successful in 2018 was the "checks and balances"/executive oversight argument. They're doing what the people elected them to do.
11:25 here. I can't believe that a group of attorneys could be so naive. Every time guardrails meant to protect our democracy should protect us, Trump uses political jiu jitsu not only to barrel through them, but to use them to his advantage. Go check out FoxNews.com, the hearing yesterday produced endless fodder for the base. Trump only needs a 42% approval rating to get re-electeed and his floor seems to be 40%. How does it help American democracy to energize his base through an impeachment proceeding that helps him get a 2nd term? The exercise alone doesn't do a damn thing. I wish Democrats would just step back and let this go to the election.
Because a base can't elect a president. Independents decide every national election.
The 2018 election is an excellent example of how smart our founding fathers were. Placing the sole power of impeachment in the body that is entirely re-elected every 2 years was a very prescient move that allows the electorate to have a method to remove an out of control president in 2 years instead of 4.
Yes, a base can elect a President. That's exactly what happened in 2016. And that's why Trump feels so emboldened to repeatedly thumb his nose to those of us outside his base. He only needs us as an occasional villain, but he most certainly doesn't need our votes. Especially if he ends up running against a wet blanket like Elizabeth Warren. He is simultaneously destroying our institutions while cruising to re-election. Pretty fucking frustrating to watch.
The House of Representatives need to go through the exercise, even if it is ultimately futile to enter a marker into history for future generations. It is kind of like the high school history text books having a chapter on the Tea Pot Dome, Iran-Contra or the Checkers scandals. If it is something marked for history so that they are learned from and not repeated.
I watched a portion of the hearing. What I heard were two lifetime government hacks who were unhappy with things being done differently and without being consulted. In other words, they are part of the bureaucratic swamp who resent change and an approach that gets things done.
(BTW – where is the investigation on Biden and son?)
"things being done differently" = a prez using his "personal lawyer" to direct official US policy decisions affecting national security.
12:09, that's not what happened in 2016. Trump won by winning his base AND flipping a few previously moderate blue states and winning some competitive purple states, mainly in the rust belt. Those were (and still are) moderate, union-centered states that Trump successfully sold snake oil to using fear of foreign workers and promises of keeping their jobs in stagnate or dying industries.
Basically, he flipped a bunch of states Obama won. Not sure how you can claim the Hannity crowd base alone elected him.
at 11:21, et.al.
Tell me please, where in the Constitution or the USC does the President NOT have the power to send a personal emissary to foreign countries?
When you are withholding aid to try and get dirt on a political rival or just have a country say they are investigating seems to be illegal. Whether he used a personal emissary or John Doe it seems like extortion. You just do this (announce an investigation for my personal gain) to get the aid congress has passed.
at 4:20, the Foreign Emolument's Clause (art. I, Section 9, Clause 8) seems pretty on point:
"[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
None of the above partisan duel sided commentary matters…prepare for the coming revolution
This is a very in-depth article about what, exactly, is being alleged against Tobiasson and Chelini.
https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2019/11/14/investigative-reports-paint-picture-of-judicial-dysfunction/?fbclid=IwAR1pEnhpVd5_tG8HxwU-wZOhE0zA7UwI1Lr2O_nyusc4vuBjc-mZHdPxtqE
Ha! I now get what the Tobiasson and Chelini case is about. Court administration thinks they run the Court and are flipping out because the judges aren't letting them do what they want. Court administration files a judicial complaint because they want to be in charge of the asylum. This isn't just happening in this Court. In a lot of courts, the administration already runs the show.
Sincerely curious as to how much truth there is behind this.
How the knee jerk hell is this getting out. Paul? I thought the complaints were confidential.
Hmm.. I don't believe the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, staff counsel or the panel, are fools or idiots. The complaints could have been dismissed out of hand as baseless, or a cautionary letter issued to the judges. To get this far, the initial review triggered an investigation, then the Commission had to make findings of reasonable probability. Even at this late stage, the matter could have ended with cautionary letter (the second juncture were only a letter is issued). Going to formal public proceedings is rare.
It could also be that you have Maggie Tucker (and her mouthpiece Steve Wolfson) who would go to the press if the JDC did not conduct an actual hearing. But that is bush league prosecutorial work to charge something to avoid political pressure because it overlooks the harm which even charging does.
With that said, this story would have a great deal more credibility if it was not written by Dana Gentry who has a personal relationship with one (or more) of the parties in this story.
They are fools.
Seriously? This is what Paul Dehyle is investigationng???? You have judged doing way worse things that you don't do shift about. Jesus.
Judges
Jeas have done way worse than this, and judicial discipline does shit.