- Quickdraw McLaw
- 59 Comments
- 245 Views
- As you can see from the press release below, Chief Justice Mark Gibbons announced he is not running for reelection next year. Justice Kristina Pickering is however. Meanwhile, Judge Douglas Herndon and Ozzie Fumo have both announced they intend to run for the Supreme Court. [TNI]
- AG Aaron Ford’s chief of staff signed a fundraising pitch on his behalf raising questions about the propriety of her actions. [TNI]
- While some Strip properties went back to free parking earlier this year, you may soon be paying more to park at the airport and you can no longer park for free during shows at the Smith Center.
- Storm Area 51 may be over, but the lawsuit is just heating up. [KTNV]
- The press release issued yesterday:
Chief Justice Mark Gibbons announced today he will not seek re-election in 2020 for a fourth term on the Nevada Supreme Court. Chief Justice Gibbons was first elected to the Nevada Supreme Court in 2002. He is the longest serving Justice among the seven members of the Court.
Prior to his election to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Gibbons served as a District Court Judge in Clark County for six years. In 2001, he was elected Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court by his fellow judges.
“Since judicial election filing opens in January 2020, I wanted to make this announcement early so people interested in the position could decide to file for the office,” said Chief Justice Gibbons.
The term of office for a Supreme Court Justice is six years.
Chief Justice Gibbons is a graduate of the University of California, Irvine and Loyola University School of Law. Chief Justice Gibbons is the brother of Nevada Court of Appeals Chief Judge Michael P. Gibbons.
The counter lawsuit claims that early on in the process Roberts and his business associate, Brock Daily, had their worries about the event being a possible bust in the dust, adding "they began requesting confirmation from Connie and the Little A'Le'Inn that their venue would be a safe SPACE to hold the Storm Area 51/Alienstock Event and that the festival would be more than simply camping in COSMIC DUST and STARGAZING."
LOL, classic
Aaron Ford is slime. Look at who he is affiliated with. He has no experience as a criminal lawyer. He had well into 6 fgures of tax liens paid by who, his former employer? He has a record, but this state elected him. Just keep voting party and that is what you get.
For all the vitriol leveled at Laxalt, I'm shocked that this dunce Ford isn't being grilled more by the media. I get that the loudest voice in the crowd has a personal issue with Laxalt, but there's no way even Ralston thinks that Ford is a good politician.
Ralston had/has a bizarre obsession with Laxalt. One might dismiss it as simple liberal bias, but there's clearly more going on with Ralston's motivation. He drips with inexplicable contempt for Laxalt.
Laxalt deserved it. He was a horrible boss, a horrible person, with no legal acumen whatsoever. It's not explicable if you know where to look.
A veritable train wreck, if you will.
Ford is in the Eglet family. He's protected.
It is called the American Independent Party. You have to join for Eglet, I mean Dave Thomas to be your campaign manager.
Speaking to those of you on this blog who support President Trump. Please take nothing for granted and work hard to get as many people as possible to the polls. Speak to your fellow attorneys (as I am doing now) and communicate the values of conservatism. And to those opposed to President Trump because of his personal challenges (language, etc.), I argue that you are better off with someone who at times is boorish and vulgar but who actually implements policy rather than a Warren, etc. who are seriously borderline delusional about Socialism, etc. MAGA!
"… and communicate the values of conservatism."
Donald Trump is a conservative, huh? How conservative was it when he enacted debt-financed tax cuts? I am repulsed by Trump, not merely because he is a loathsome and filthy person, but because he ISNT conservative. I left the GOP because I am a conservative and Trump absolutely is not.
Voting for Warren (or whomever the Dems nominate). She won't be able to enact any of her wackadoo liberal policies with a GOP Senate anyway. Better to have a liberal President than a fake conservative who destroys our institutions.
Talking about delusional. Trump is the most corrupt president since perhaps Warren Harding. He is either mentally ill or in the early stages of dementia. He left our allies to be slaughtered in Syria, claiming he was bringing troops home while doubling troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. No one trusts the US anymore. You may not care since it's about "you" but hopefully, more of us do care. A lot of us are or have friends and colleagues who are Latino, gay or transgender, Jewish, etc., who care when the President enacts unilateral orders allowing agencies to deny gay and trans people the right to foster and adopt children or call Nazis very fine people. The only reason the evangelicals support him is because of judges who will overturn Roe and Obergefell and his fake belief in Israel, only because the rapture of Jews to hell requires Israel's existence according to those evangelicals. Talk to other attorneys about Trump? Please do. Perhaps they have more respect for the Constitution than you or Trump. Meanwhile, over 400 pieces of legislation were sent to the house and are being blocked by Yertl the Turtle McConnell. MAGA! I'd vote for a fire hydrant.
Should have said legislationsent by the Senate from the House.
>actually implements policy
[citation needed]
@9:48, I too wish more Trump supporters would self-disclose! Speak loudly and proudly so that we may all know who you are, comrade. And do not be disheartened when your close friends and family turn away from you because they finally and fully understand the depths of your amorality and depravity, for in the end, you will be justified in having given up your soul when American women everywhere are forced in chains, by the US Supreme Court, to abide by the will of conservative men. Amen
Traditional, conservative family values in the era of Trump: "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
But how 'bout dem tax cuts and judges?
I'm a conservative who voted for Trump in 2016, and I think he should be removed from office over the Ukraine ordeal. My fellow conservatives, ask yourself: wouldn't you be rallying for Hillary Clinton's removal from office if she had been the one on the phone with Zelensky asking for dirt on a possible GOP presidential candidate? If your answer is yes, then how can you support Trump?
I am proud of my fellow conservatives. We are not who you think we are. Be loud, be proud.
Is this a joke? Trump is not a conservative.
Exactly what isnt conservative about slashing regulations by the hundreds of pages? Whether Trump is conservative or not, he is doing conservative things and that is better for everyone. Quit with the nonsense about his alleged racism and homophobia. Tha is CNN drivel. Ukraine is Joke. Another red herring (like Russia Collusion) to detract the narrative (and the left wing news media) from the fact that Epstein did not commit suicide.
I say let Trumpers enjoy it while it lasts. They might even get another term. Then we elect President AOC in 2024 and General Secretary AOC in 2028!
Hey guys. Let's not forget the draft dodging and three marriages. Those are core tenants of conservatism.
So Herndon hides evidence while he was a DA and guy sits in prison for 20 years despite being innocent and now he wants to be on Supreme Court.
I have no idea who I will support. My bet, Cadish will be out campaigning for her man, Fumo.
Interesting. I'm not a Democrat, but I personally would prefer a president who upholds the integrity of the institution regardless of his/her politics. Even if you set that aside, however, I think most conservatives would question whether the current president is actually implementing any worthwhile policies. I get that conservatives value the appointment of judges. But beyond that, can you really point to any actual policies that have been implemented? Maybe a couple, but then ask yourself if they are conservative policies. Is increasing the national deficit and debt a Republican policy now? Is losing ground in the Middle East to Iran and Russia a Republican policy now?
He is valued not because he actually accomplishes anything, but because he fights with and trolls the opposition, which for most Trump supporters, is more than enough. To that end, Trump is wildly successful. It is why he will be reelected.
I agree with 10:36 to some extent. I think Trump was successful in getting elected (and remaining viable for reelection) because he is aggressively anti-political correctness (whether consciously or not…) and exactly because he doesn't play by the political rules. People always want "Change" and someone who "is not a politician." Welp, we got it.
As far as accomplishing anything, I think the immigration issue is one thing that makes him popular with a lot of people. He intentionally made conditions at the border horrible, expressly to discourage immigrants from coming. While most people would not, at least publicly, condone the means, they support the end. In contrast, Dems seem to essentially be encouraging and inviting illegal immigration, which I think most conservatives strongly oppose.
And the Dems keep getting more extreme, which is just firing up the Trump base more, while alienating the moderates.
Anyway, I hate Trump and there's no way I'm voting for him. But I can totally understand why a lot of people have and will. The Dems need to stop listening to the vocal minority of rabid progressives and put up someone decent and moderate, or they are going to lose whatever crossover voters are left in this idiotically polarized country.
OK, rant over.
Other than tax cuts to benefit wealthy and super wealthy, huge deficits and many appointed judges who we must hope won't lower the bar, what policies has Cheeto Fatty passed?
Agree with 10:36. 80% of Trump support is resentment politics and owning the libs.
9:59 losing ground in the Middle East to Iran and Russia
How what short term memory loss you suffer. Obama gave both to Russia, line in the sand, etc. allowing Russia to get a naval base in Syria, inviting Russia into Syria to "dispose" of chemical weapons. By the time Trump was on scene, Russia's influence in the region was set.
2:16,
It sounds like what you're saying is that because Russia got *some* influence in the MidEast under Obama, then it's okay with you that Russia gets *lots* of influence in the MidEast under Trump?
That's certainly an interesting position to take. Similar to saying that "condoms are not 100% effective, so I don't use any birth control at all."
2:45,
You clearly don't understand how grievance politics works. The question isn't whether a policy is objectively good, or whether a politician is objectively corrupt. The question is whether your guy and your policy are better than the other sides. And, inevitably, that superiority exists. You're thinking about this all wrong, 2:45. Don't ask, "Is withdrawing troops from Syria good foreign policy?" That's the wrong question. Ask, "Is withdrawing troops from Syria better than what Obama did?" And obviously, the answer is YES. Don't ask, "Is Donald Trump corrupt?" Ask, "Are the ANTIFA-loving socialists more corrupt than Donald Trump?" Even better, you might ask, "How much more corrupt is the Left than Donald Trump?" or "Why is the Left so corrupt and why does it hate America so much?"
You just have to think about it the right way, which you're not doing. Once you get your thinking straightened out, you'll understand what a mensch DJT is!
12:16, don't forget he has gutted EPA regulations. The fact that Republicans tout that as a win is appalling. Oh they're too much of a burden on American businesses? BS. American business is as powerful and successful and productive as it ever has been, and that's with the increased environmental regulation of the past half century.
Anybody remember the environmental conditions in the US in the 70s? Anybody seeing the environmental conditions in India and other countries today.
10:36 nails it. Sure, you’d have the same judicial appointments, tax cuts, and abandonment of international relationships and agreements, with a President Pence. But Pence is no P.T. Barnum. And modern “Republicans” apparently love the circus.
Why in the world is Legal Aid hiring for this position? Is this a new initiative by them? Seems like there's so many other needy people that Legal Aid could help that aren't employed or members of the culinary union. Culinary union should do this on their own and hire their own lawyers to help their members. Why get Legal Aid involved?
"Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, a non-profit, public interest law firm, is seeking multiple attorneys with varying expertise to be part of a new team dedicated to providing legal assistance to hotel, casino and other workers as part of an innovative employee benefit program negotiated by the Culinary and Bartenders Unions and participating employers. Of special interest are attorneys with prior experience in immigration law, consumer debt defense, bankruptcy, tenant’s rights, or estate planning. Bi-lingual attorneys (English/Spanish) who are smart and eager to learn are encouraged to apply regardless of their prior areas of practice. As part of Legal Aid Center’s new program, these attorneys will provide legal services to the workers and families who are the backbone of our community, hard-working people who might not otherwise be able to afford an attorney, to help safeguard their legal and economic wellbeing."
Perhaps Legal Aid has been contracted to coordinate and provide this service, but the funding for the project is actually being paid by the employers under the union contract. Such an arrangement would eliminate a great deal of the potential conflicts between the various employers, as well as, between the employers and the union as to the lawyers to hire. I suspect that all, for their own individual reasons, could agree to using Legal Aid as a cost effective, broad spectrum, legal services provider.
LACSN doesn't have some carte blanche to determine to whom to provide services. I don't know much about its funding, but I imagine it's like every other non-profit law firm I have come across and it provides services to those its funding sources permit. The ad you posted makes it clear the CBA funds this position, probably explicitly at LACSN.
It is a very poorly written job posting. I believe LACSN is being sponsored in this initiative by Culinary and certain employers, not targeting their services to Culinary members and certain employers (in the same way that Padda is sponsoring a position or grant to LACSN). I understand the confusion and LACSN should really clarify this.
Ah, aren't they a non-profit funded entirely if not mostly by the state? How can they now provide for cost legal services?
It's all spelled out in the posting. CBA is including a "employee benefit" program in its negotiation. The employee benefit is access to legal services. They then contract with LACSN to provide those services at either a given rate or a discounted rate. If it's anything like the services I've had pitched at me, LACSN is paying CBA for exclusivity, but they get a steady stream of clients in return.
But this sure as shit ain't public interest or pro bono work. If they intend to take estate planning clients, they can for damn sure hire more attorneys for CAP, and they can stop asking me to volunteer my time and money.
4:56, More than half their funding ($7.7 million) comes from court filing fees. Another $3.5 million comes from grants and contracts, while IOLTA kicks in another $1.8 million.
No longer legal aid for the needy, is it, Babs Buckley?
How many servers do you know that can afford unsubsidized legal services? Hell, I am a lawyer and I could not afford to hire myself.
Doesn't seem like LACSN should be lining their pockets with union money. Guess I'll find another entity to donate my pro bono hours and monetary donations to.
Fuck LACSN, Babs is taking clients away from Eglet.
To those of you who replied about President Trump above: The reason that you will lose the election is because you assume Trump supporters are delusional, (pick your word), etc. You simply cannot fathom that enough of us exist in places where we need to exist (Electoral College wise) to see President Trump in office again. I don't want to help the liberal cause in any way but if you would simply treat us as thinking people and try to understand us, then you might at least convince some of us. However, the dismissive attitude only hardens our resolve. I understand we sicken you with our morality-inspired policy objectives. That's fine and I do not care. What I really care about is that you continue to dismiss us and underestimate us. Please, just ignore us.
I agree that Trump supporters are misunderstood. However, that misunderstanding goes both ways. The over-the-top rhetoric coming out of Fox News and Trump's base labeling every left of center politician and idea as "socialist" suggests that maybe your people don't exactly have a full grasp on who the opposition is and what makes them tick.
I don't think most of the left thinks Trump supporters are "delusional." We just think Trump supporters support loathsome goals. Also, lol at thinking people are "sicken[ed]…with…morality-inspired policy objectives" rather than sickened with an ideology that values misogyny over women, values the protection of white supremacy over equality, values capital over labor and public health, and values putting brown kids in cages and taking away their soccer balls as an end in itself.
"[M]orality-inspired policy objectives"? Like separating children from their parents? Like white supremacy? Like voter suppression? Like glorification of machismo and the sexual objectification of women? Like abandoning your allies on the battlefield? Please. Republicans no longer get to claim the moral high ground.
2:16 Dunce
Persons arrested on any criminal charge are separated from their children when there is no available familial custodian because the children cannot accompany the offender to jail. The Obama administration did it and we do it in Clark County on misdemeanor arrests.
Yes because people legally seeking asylum should be treated as criminals.
"The sexual objectification of women" wow, sorry to trigger you, evolution may know something you don't, u ever think human biology is not that bad, do u ever dress up, wear makeup, etc.?, in my heart I know liberalism is truly a mental illness for those that cannot see the world as it is and the effects of physics, biology, etc. on human beings, I dont know u but your thoughts sicken me
I am not 2:16 and cannot speak for them, but you seem to have missed the point. 2:16 brought up Republican sexual objectification of women as a counter to the specious claim that Republicans have some unique claim to morality.
More importantly, you seem not to understand the difference between sexual attraction and objectification. Objectification refers to behaviors, attitudes, and structures that view women as merely the objects of male sexual desire. Opposition to objectification is not opposition to sexual attraction, but merely a recognition that women are real humans with full agency and their own desires and preferences.
I am 2:16, and 5:29 gets it.
Procedural Question. Supreme Court issued Order Reinstating Briefing at the end of May. Appellant had until August 31, 2019 to file Opening Brief. Appellant has never filed an Opening Brief. Do I file a Motion to Dismiss Appeal? Do I sit back and wait for the Supremes to figure it out on their own?
If it were me, I'd wait a wee bit longer, maybe till the end of this month, so it's a full three months that they blew the deadline. Then I'd file a motion to dismiss the appeal.
But I wouldn't expect it to be granted unless it's a garbage case anyway, and the delay just gives the court a good excuse to boot it.
I agree with 4:19 PM. With the new (ish) court I have found Motions to Dismiss to be unavailing for procedural failures e.g. late opening briefs or jurisdictional failures.
I've filed two since Silver/Cadish came onto the bench, and regardless of whether I file one or not, there's either a sua sponte dismissal or show cause order and there is a footnote stating that my motion is rendered moot by their order.
If your client wants you to 'do something' I feel like at least 90 days is a safe number for filing your MTD which hopefully doesn't result in the court now saying your appellant has 15 more days to comply or dismissal.
To those who support Trump, look to the future and ask yourself how it will feel to be on the opposite side. How will you like it when AOC or Bernie or Warren threaten to have the republican running against them arrested, whistleblowers exposed and the rule of law ignored? would you be OK if France hacked the GOP's emails and released damaging ones and MSNBC had Maddow on everyday to claim that there was a pedophile ring being run out of the basement of every red state courthouse so all of those who happen to exit should be summarily arrested for being rapists, i.e. red state lawyers? What about having the military leave allies at risk because Beto O'Rouke had a hotel located in the opposing country and to hell with our long standing foreign policy because the are "fighting over sand"? When the world gets turned upside down, its not just the one that is "winning" at that moment who pays for the change in terms, we all do. Do you really think the democrats will not pursue the same power that Trump is abusing now when they return to power and use his abuses as justification to go even further away from the two party process? What happens when the democrats have the Electoral College set aside to protect the country from not having the votes respected of "the people" meaning all the blue people who make up the majority? The blues outnumber the reds by significant margins but are concentrated now on the coasts. All of that red in flyover country is land, not people, and there are not enough voters there to keep the republicans' competitive in securing presidential power in the future which means a permanent blue power base which will trickle down to the states. What happens when DC and Puerto Rico and The Virgin Islands get full voting rights and corresponding senate seats- more red dilution. What's next, add seats to the Supreme Court and appoint more judges to make it more fair to the liberals with the seat stolen from Obama because the senate wouldn't consider his nominee for almost a year? A blue majority will take over eventually and then all of those rules that were so easy to ignore because Trump "cut through the BS" and "drained the swamp" can be ignored by democrats just as easily as Trump can tweet out contradicting defenses for blackmailing Ukraine. When the rules are broken by one side, they are broken for all. Why would the democrats not use the same rational to consolidate power that has been used by the republicans? Get ready, this is the future you have wrought by allowing Trump to abuse the very institution that allowed us to have a stable two party government. When the power of government is based upon cult of personality and not the rules, the cult can ride the wave for a while, but eventually things change and then those that ruled get to see it from the other side.
Hope that red hat was worth it
I really wish we had a viable 3rd party in this country. It would make such a difference in our politics — regardless of what that 3rd party represented. Can you imagine if there were 5 US Senators who were in the "Not R/D Party"? Maybe there could be some actual compromise and governing, rather than the current BS.
I get that right now, everyone's focus is on removing/keeping Trump and his enablers/supporters. I don't think 2020 is the election for a 3rd party. But a moderate can dream, can't I?
I had always wished that Libertarian party was viable. I find most members and their leaders to be really untenable gold standard supporting balancing on the edge of sovereign nations,,,,, but the core values of fiscal conservation, small government, and social liberal beliefs seems like it could be a great third party.