While an evidentiary hearing is taking place this morning on the suit filed last week (follow @RileySnyder for live tweeting), the Trump campaign (represented here by David Lee) filed another suit yesterday against Clark County seeking records related to ballot processing. [TNI]
Education funding lawsuit appears to be headed to the Nevada Supreme Court. [TNI]
Jim Murren opines on why we can’t wait for a vaccine to help businesses reopen. [TNI]
AG Aaron Ford joins 22 state coalition opposing Trump limits on student visas. [News3LV]
With Nevada COVID numbers on the rise, Governor Sisolak has set another press conference for this afternoon at 3pm. [8NewsNow]
Agree – Propaganda support stats to drive political agenda. If this pandemic was half as bad as they want us to believe, it would have never gotten politicized. Now we are stuck in the vortex of political party power grabs. I'm sick of it.
COVID numbers are being artificially inflated and it is still far less deadly than the flu. There is no reason whatsoever that we should have any restrictions at all, individuals can make their own choices on the risks.
Sisolak and the rest of the blue state governors are just using the pandemic as a power grab for the authoritarian left.
What is wrong with you people? Sure, it might be a little overblown. People are dying at a slower rate because doctors are getting better at treating it.
But take a look at Utah hospitals, Midwestern hosptials, and tell me this is just a figment of our imagination to be politicized. Check out local papers throughout the Midwest. Their hospitals are getting flooded.
Sure, argue that even as hospitalizations are going up people aren't dying that much and there are policy reasons that weigh in favor of lesser government restrictions. But don't BS everybody and say this isn't real. I, for one, will not reject the evidence of my eyes and ears.
@ 2:09 I'm sure your definition of "real evidence" is whatever crap CNN or God forbid MSNBC spoon feeds you. The hospitals are fine, and will continue to be fine. This "pandemic" is less of a threat than the seasonal flu.
Look, you can simultaneously believe this is a pandemic that is affecting people and hurting people, it's real and people are suffering, and believe that in tandem with the fact that shutting down the economy seems to be politically motivated and be skeptical of the randomness of the shutdowns. It doesn't have to be either or, can we all start being rational?!
So are you suggesting the shutdowns in France and Germany that are making headlines today are politically motivated too? Scientifically speaking, Germany has a little more credibility than that. Here, it becomes political because we're a country that can't be told what to do.
You're confused. The small African nations suffering from poor Coronavirus response are part of the US Democratic party's plot. South Korea's early lockdowns and aggressive testing scheme wasn't done in concert with the libs; it was more of a general "anti-Trump" policy. You have to keep the different schemes straight where there is overlap, right?
2:09 here. I didn't say MSNBC or CNN 3:40. Try Reuters. AP. ABC/NBC/CBS. PBS. Bloomberg. Local news outlets. You can't be confronted with a fact you don't like and then just yell that it's CNN fake news. Hell Fox has even reported it. Republican governors are taking action on it. You're flat out wrong.
You might be right that governors shouldn't be issuing such strict restrictions based on competing policy interests, but to say there is a stronger threat from the flu and that hospitals are fine is ignoring reality.
It's allowed to become political because over 99% of the population is surviving this thing. Otherwise, at a rate of say 50% survival, there would be no room for politics, just survival. Politics is a sociological privilege.
@ 2:09/4:54 way to just name other fake news. Try drudge and infowars.
Guest
Anonymous
October 28, 2020 4:58 pm
Education funding is not the issue. Education management is the issue. The anti-children, anti-education Teachers Unions will not stop until we are like DC or other shitholes where funding is off the charts and educational accountability nonexistent. A union boss's dream.
There is a strong correlation between funding and results. There are outliers like DC and Utah, but generally more funding helps provide better education. I personally would welcome a small tax to better fund our schools.
That said, this lawsuit is borderline frivolous. Funding decisions are up to the legislature. No way a court is getting involved.
Guest
anonymous
October 28, 2020 5:02 pm
I wish I could take back a couple of my votes for judge. That's the problem with early voting I guess.
I haven't voted yet, but I actually changed my decisions based on a candidate's failure to answer (or statement that they refused to answer) a survey. The very minimum required of a judicial candidate is answering questions as to why they should get the job. If you can't do that much, you can't be a good judge.
I guess that's why I don't trust early voting. Once it's in you can't change your mind when, you know, new sh*t has come to light.
Guest
Anonymous
October 28, 2020 5:45 pm
David Lee is representing the Trump campaign? What? Were the campaign's lawn sprinklers damaging it's stucco siding?
Looking at the lawyers representing the Trump campaign and it's interests in Nevada, its striking how deep down the bench they are having to go to find attorneys. It's amazing these are all ID attorneys. I wonder if the good firms and top attorneys are refusing these cases, or if the Trump campaign can't afford $600 an hour.
We can snicker if we wish. David is damn good lawyer who has been extremely successful. He is tenacious but amiable enough that I would never underestimate him. I do not trust him in the slightest, but he is a very good advocate.
Exactly. Someone might be a very competent construction defect lawyer or insurance defense lawyer, but it doesn't mean they are on par with Steve Peek or Dan Polsenberg or Jim Pisanelli or whatever. Hell, it doesn't mean they are on par with an average senior associate or junior partner at a place like LRRC, GT, H&H, Pisanelli Bice, Brownstein Hyatt, Kemp Jones, McDonald Carano, Snell and Wilmer, etc. Not saying these guys are bad lawyers, but between the firms I just named alone there are probably 100-150 litigators that regularly handle bigger and more complex litigation against better opposing counsel.
You guys are deluding yourselves if you think some (key word: some) of the lawyers in this town who handle construction defect claim are not on par with many of those large firm litigators. David Lee does not only handle developer side residential construction defect. You mention McDonald Carano– David Lee is on par with George Ogilvie who I would rate as probably tops at MC. David is on par with any litigator in Brownstein's local office. He is not as good as Pisanelli but very few in town are. The assertion that there are 150 litigators in town better than David Lee is asinine.
To 1:11 and 3:40 — I hope you both are struck by this virus and rendered miserable to the point of death. I hope you then recover but suffer a permanent disability as a result of this virus, with such disability being of sufficient magnitude of bother, inconvenience, and even pain so as to constantly remind you for the rest of your livelong days how utterly selfish and ignorant you are. Thusly disabled, I hope you thence live a long life so you have many, many days to contemplate in misery your lack of virtue and your disbelief in FACTS and SCIENCE.
5:14–I realize that 1:11 and 3:40 have drank the Trump Kool Aid, and are incapable of individual thought, and just mindlessly parrot whatever ignorant right-wing talking points are currently in vogue, but you did not have to go nearly so far in your utter annihilation and condemnation of them.
You seem to equate ignorance and extreme political polarization with hideous and intentional cruelty. I don't think those posters are necessarily cruel. They are just ignorant and are impervious to objective data and reasoning. They don't want to hear the truth or deal with it, so they dismiss it. That's nothing new. Millions do that.
5:32, pray tell what policies of Trump hurt you so? Low taxes? Fewer regulations? Record breaking employment, especially among minorities? The lowest incarceration rate of minorities in recent memory? Peace in the Middle East? Bringing our troops home?
Tell us, oh voice of reason, where does Trump hurt you? Was it his twitter feed? His New Yorker charms?
And, Kool Aid lover, what are your exact thoughts on the Biden email revelations?
545 children separated at the border from their parents. Parents that cannot be found and will likely never see their children again. Thats all I need.
I really hope that LVRJ 2012 comments die off next Wednesday.
Guest
Anonymous
October 28, 2020 6:06 pm
10:02. It sounds like you voted for a judge or two, but then became disenchanted based on a subsequent court appearance you had before them.
And this is the problem when people evaluate judges solely based on being upset about how a judge ruled on an individual case.
For example,when I fill in that survey, I will not evaluate a judge unless I have had several appearances before him/her.
If I have that requisite experience before them, and they seem unprepared, or exercise favoritism, or have a poor demeanor, or appear weak on the law, then I evaluate them accordingly.
But if I have only one appearance before them, and they seem prepared, conduct the hearing in a fair and appropriate matter, but simply rule against my legal position, I don't think it is fair to eviscerate them on the survey or on social media–unless they were so blatantly wrong that no rational judge could rule that way.
But we as attorneys can be very self-assured, convinced we are right, and then shocked when a judge rules against us. But the last time I felt that way, I submitted the situation to six attorney colleagues for their view. Most of them agreed with my positon, but also observed that it is not necessarily clearly unreasonable or violative of the law for the judge to rule in the other direction.
So, if you voted for a couple judges based on some real experience with them over time, and then subsequent to your vote you lost an isolated motion before each of them, that, in and of itself, may not be a sufficient basis to regret your vote.
T
Guest
Anonymous
October 28, 2020 6:12 pm
11:06 sounds too reasonable and level-headed for my purpsoes.
I prefer attorneys who have real passion, who are colorful, cocky, supremely confident, and who think they are right even when they are not.
11:06 sounds like one of those quiet, nerdy types who likes to fanatically deconstruct obscure points, and hides out in their office researching–seldom appearing in court or interacting with clients, etc.
But now that I may have hurt 11:06's feelings, I must give the devil his due.
I agree with the point that when we evaluate and rate judges, and decide who to support in elections, it should be based on some real experience with that judge, and not just we are pissed off because we lost our last motion before them.
So the judges want to use the judging the judges percentages to vote for them, but then Bonnie Bulla wants you to ignore it, because any attorney who is against her lost in front of her. Logical, consistent argument.
1:13, well, as you well know, that has been the standard all along.
Highly rated judges boast about the results and give kudos to the survey as being scientific, highly accurate and comprehensive.
Judges rated in the middle tend to say nothing, neither good nor bad, about the survey.
But poorly rated judges dismiss the survey as nothing more than a tool where a few disgruntled attorneys(who lost before the judge, and rightfully so according to the judge) can band together, and vent their venom and drive the judge's numbers down.
But even far more offensive, and even far more illogically, the lowly rated judge will invariably claim they are rated low because they are extremely knowledgeable and very well-prepared, and that they do not tolerate bullshit or unprepared attorneys, but instead properly, and unwaveringly, enforce the and follow the law. And that is supposedly why attorneys dislike and resent them.
But by taking this approach lowly-rated judges expose their own ignorance, malice, and completely throw their colleagues under the bus. They don't seem to realize that when they offer such a defense and explanation, that it must logically flow that their highly rated colleagues lack minimal legal knowledge, are ill-prepared, do not follow and enforce the law, allow attorneys to ignore all rules and be completely unprepared, and consistently allow attorneys to indulge in all manner of bullshit.
Which all dovetails into a somewhat broader topic–abusive judges. These disturbed bullies and min-tyrants fall back on the tired rationalization that they are simply following the law, enforcing their orders and not putting up with any bullshit. All of which suggests that their colleagues of sound demeanor do not enforce their orders and are only too happy to tolerate and indulge all forms of bullshit from attorneys.
2:43–I'm an aging fart who has practiced well over three decades.
I used to claim to be thick-skinned and that as long as a judge was knowledgeable, prepared, and accurate as to their rulings, that is what is really important, and that it is thus relatively unimportant if the judge yells at me(for no justifiable reason) and has a surly and mean temperament.
At the time, older attorneys told me that I would get good and sick of these types of judges, and that I would evolve over time to change my view, and boy were they right.
Certainly legal knowledge, preparedness, precision and accuracy of rulings is critical but nothing gets a judge more unpopular, more quickly, than a foul and unpleasant temperament.
And this is supported by the survey. Judges who seem quite knowledgeable and well-prepared, but who have a foul and vile demeanor, usually receive low retention scores. Meanwhile, pleasant judges who seem to not match that surly judge's knowledge or preparedness, will often score much higher.
Practicing law is hard enough. It ages one 15 years. No one appreciates being yelled at for doing their job, and doing it well.
I cannot vote for Bonnie Bulla for Nevada Court of Appeals, because she is hearing cases on appeal that she decided in the lower court. A complete conflict if interest.
There are more experienced folks than Bulla. No loss.
Guest
Anonymous
October 28, 2020 6:29 pm
Speaking of judges and judicial elections, one incumbent has released a new ad campaign attacking the incumbent for being a defense attorney.
The electorate is becoming more liberal and youth oriented, which means they will focus on the rights of the criminally accused. Plus these younger voters are often suspicious of law enforcement, including police and prosecutors(particularly in our present tumultuous times).
So, considering that, is it at all effective to run ads insisting that because one's opponent is a criminal defense attorney that such means they are committed to putting pedophiles, and other sordid scum, back on the street so they can re-victimize us?
There may be some older, ultra-conservative, less educated demographic that this is still effective with, but I suspect this demographic is really dwindling.
Also, does it raise ethical issues if a sitting judge shows such utter contempt and ignorance for the critical constitutional underpinnings involved when they dismiss all defense attorneys as being morally bankrupt scum who are gleefully committed to release the pedophiles, thugs, rapists and murders back on the street to re-offend?
Even considering that desperate means are often tolerated in campaigns, is this going too far considering that the candidate behind such an attack is a sitting judge, who is required to comply with the Judicial Code?
Guest
Anonymous
October 28, 2020 7:57 pm
There's a candidate for judge who is consistently referred to in "voter guides" as "well-respected" by peers. I wonder who the heck these newspapers are talking to. Every single attorney I've spoken to, other than those who are on the same team as the candidate, has nothing but contempt for this attorney, both in terms of skill and personality. Anyone else see this with attorneys they work with/against?
I like Trevor Atkin but his latest ad saying that "It is important to have a judge who has lived in Las Vegas all of his life" is ridiculous. I don't care that you (or Phil Aurbach) had a paper route here. You are the better candidates in your races because you are dedicated to the community now.
12:57–that's the problem with opinion-based statements. No one has to prove or support them as they would need to prove or support specific assertions of fact.
Something like "most highly-rated judge on Judging The Judges Survey" can be easily established as either true or not.
But the most vile,dishonorable, abusive, incompetent, ill-prepared, demeaning, obstructionist, universally reviled attorney can trumpet that they are "Held in the highest regard by their colleagues", and no one can do anything about such patently false statement.
Such candidate would never be required to provide a list of attorneys(with contact info.) who hold the candidate in such high esteem.
Guest
Anonymous
October 28, 2020 8:20 pm
I pretty much always support Trump, but I do not understand limiting student visas. Why is this a good idea? Seems like a hit to our economy and I see no benefit. Is this just a play in his pissing match with China? Or is this some sort of attempt to appease his base?
Still voting Trump cause I don't hate America, but really disappointed in his decision here.
"Hit to the economy and no benefit" is pretty much Trump's go-to plan. TPP? Let's pull out and cede to China most of the influence on policy-making in the region. Trade wars he started? Let's slap tariffs on goods and make American consumers (not the overseas manufacturers) pay more. Media not being nice? Let's literally close the Mexico-US border for no damn reason (talking 2019, not covid-related).
Limiting student visas is just part of Steve Miller's overarching dream of ending non-white immigration pretty much entirely. Which is, again, par for the course of "hit to the economy with no benefit" since international students contributed $41 billion to the economy in 2018, but that number is falling pretty hard as international students go elsewhere (for example, in 2018, 90% of Indians studying abroad came here, but in the coming year, that number will drop to 77%). No student wants to pay full tuition for a degree they may not be able to legally finish in the time allotted.
If you expect anything else, you're backing the wrong horse. His economy wasn't particularly strong, but it was being supported by the Fed's low rates. Unfortunately, the Fed used up its rounds propping up his economy, so when monetary policy might have actually been useful, there was nothing left in the chamber. Again, par for a Trump course.
"Covid numbers."
Agree – Propaganda support stats to drive political agenda. If this pandemic was half as bad as they want us to believe, it would have never gotten politicized. Now we are stuck in the vortex of political party power grabs. I'm sick of it.
COVID numbers are being artificially inflated and it is still far less deadly than the flu. There is no reason whatsoever that we should have any restrictions at all, individuals can make their own choices on the risks.
Sisolak and the rest of the blue state governors are just using the pandemic as a power grab for the authoritarian left.
How about the red state governors who have imposed restrictions? RinOs right?
What is wrong with you people? Sure, it might be a little overblown. People are dying at a slower rate because doctors are getting better at treating it.
But take a look at Utah hospitals, Midwestern hosptials, and tell me this is just a figment of our imagination to be politicized. Check out local papers throughout the Midwest. Their hospitals are getting flooded.
Sure, argue that even as hospitalizations are going up people aren't dying that much and there are policy reasons that weigh in favor of lesser government restrictions. But don't BS everybody and say this isn't real. I, for one, will not reject the evidence of my eyes and ears.
"If this pandemic was half as bad as they want us to believe, it would have never gotten politicized."
Riiiiiiiight.
@ 2:09 I'm sure your definition of "real evidence" is whatever crap CNN or God forbid MSNBC spoon feeds you. The hospitals are fine, and will continue to be fine. This "pandemic" is less of a threat than the seasonal flu.
You have a absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are either ignoring the science or you are too stupid to understand the science.
Look, you can simultaneously believe this is a pandemic that is affecting people and hurting people, it's real and people are suffering, and believe that in tandem with the fact that shutting down the economy seems to be politically motivated and be skeptical of the randomness of the shutdowns. It doesn't have to be either or, can we all start being rational?!
So are you suggesting the shutdowns in France and Germany that are making headlines today are politically motivated too? Scientifically speaking, Germany has a little more credibility than that. Here, it becomes political because we're a country that can't be told what to do.
Yes, you're right, the shutdowns in the Czech Republic and Ireland are all part of the US Democratic party's plot to microchip everybody.
You're confused. The small African nations suffering from poor Coronavirus response are part of the US Democratic party's plot. South Korea's early lockdowns and aggressive testing scheme wasn't done in concert with the libs; it was more of a general "anti-Trump" policy. You have to keep the different schemes straight where there is overlap, right?
2:09 here. I didn't say MSNBC or CNN 3:40. Try Reuters. AP. ABC/NBC/CBS. PBS. Bloomberg. Local news outlets. You can't be confronted with a fact you don't like and then just yell that it's CNN fake news. Hell Fox has even reported it. Republican governors are taking action on it. You're flat out wrong.
You might be right that governors shouldn't be issuing such strict restrictions based on competing policy interests, but to say there is a stronger threat from the flu and that hospitals are fine is ignoring reality.
"it becomes political because we're a country that can't be told what to do." Extremely well said.
It's allowed to become political because over 99% of the population is surviving this thing. Otherwise, at a rate of say 50% survival, there would be no room for politics, just survival. Politics is a sociological privilege.
@ 2:09/4:54 way to just name other fake news. Try drudge and infowars.
Education funding is not the issue. Education management is the issue. The anti-children, anti-education Teachers Unions will not stop until we are like DC or other shitholes where funding is off the charts and educational accountability nonexistent. A union boss's dream.
There is a strong correlation between funding and results. There are outliers like DC and Utah, but generally more funding helps provide better education. I personally would welcome a small tax to better fund our schools.
That said, this lawsuit is borderline frivolous. Funding decisions are up to the legislature. No way a court is getting involved.
I wish I could take back a couple of my votes for judge. That's the problem with early voting I guess.
I haven't voted yet, but I actually changed my decisions based on a candidate's failure to answer (or statement that they refused to answer) a survey. The very minimum required of a judicial candidate is answering questions as to why they should get the job. If you can't do that much, you can't be a good judge.
I guess that's why I don't trust early voting. Once it's in you can't change your mind when, you know, new sh*t has come to light.
David Lee is representing the Trump campaign? What? Were the campaign's lawn sprinklers damaging it's stucco siding?
As a former CD attorney, this made me giggle.
Looking at the lawyers representing the Trump campaign and it's interests in Nevada, its striking how deep down the bench they are having to go to find attorneys. It's amazing these are all ID attorneys. I wonder if the good firms and top attorneys are refusing these cases, or if the Trump campaign can't afford $600 an hour.
It is possible that the attorneys for Trump are volunteers.
We can snicker if we wish. David is damn good lawyer who has been extremely successful. He is tenacious but amiable enough that I would never underestimate him. I do not trust him in the slightest, but he is a very good advocate.
^^^^ This is a joke right? If he was a damn good lawyer, he wouldn't be doing construction defects defense. That's the land of the walking dead.
Exactly. Someone might be a very competent construction defect lawyer or insurance defense lawyer, but it doesn't mean they are on par with Steve Peek or Dan Polsenberg or Jim Pisanelli or whatever. Hell, it doesn't mean they are on par with an average senior associate or junior partner at a place like LRRC, GT, H&H, Pisanelli Bice, Brownstein Hyatt, Kemp Jones, McDonald Carano, Snell and Wilmer, etc. Not saying these guys are bad lawyers, but between the firms I just named alone there are probably 100-150 litigators that regularly handle bigger and more complex litigation against better opposing counsel.
1:13, thank you for the laugh.
You guys are deluding yourselves if you think some (key word: some) of the lawyers in this town who handle construction defect claim are not on par with many of those large firm litigators. David Lee does not only handle developer side residential construction defect. You mention McDonald Carano– David Lee is on par with George Ogilvie who I would rate as probably tops at MC. David is on par with any litigator in Brownstein's local office. He is not as good as Pisanelli but very few in town are. The assertion that there are 150 litigators in town better than David Lee is asinine.
David Lee equals the brilliant legal mind of Eglet and Clark Hill. Best legal minds on this side of Lake Erie.
10:45, that is funny. Might want to check the campaign's weep screeds while you're at it.
To 1:11 and 3:40 — I hope you both are struck by this virus and rendered miserable to the point of death. I hope you then recover but suffer a permanent disability as a result of this virus, with such disability being of sufficient magnitude of bother, inconvenience, and even pain so as to constantly remind you for the rest of your livelong days how utterly selfish and ignorant you are. Thusly disabled, I hope you thence live a long life so you have many, many days to contemplate in misery your lack of virtue and your disbelief in FACTS and SCIENCE.
5:14–I realize that 1:11 and 3:40 have drank the Trump Kool Aid, and are incapable of individual thought, and just mindlessly parrot whatever ignorant right-wing talking points are currently in vogue, but you did not have to go nearly so far in your utter annihilation and condemnation of them.
You seem to equate ignorance and extreme political polarization with hideous and intentional cruelty. I don't think those posters are necessarily cruel. They are just ignorant and are impervious to objective data and reasoning. They don't want to hear the truth or deal with it, so they dismiss it. That's nothing new. Millions do that.
5:32, pray tell what policies of Trump hurt you so? Low taxes? Fewer regulations? Record breaking employment, especially among minorities? The lowest incarceration rate of minorities in recent memory? Peace in the Middle East? Bringing our troops home?
Tell us, oh voice of reason, where does Trump hurt you? Was it his twitter feed? His New Yorker charms?
And, Kool Aid lover, what are your exact thoughts on the Biden email revelations?
545 children separated at the border from their parents. Parents that cannot be found and will likely never see their children again. Thats all I need.
@9:50 WHO BUILT THE CAGES, JOE?
I really hope that LVRJ 2012 comments die off next Wednesday.
10:02. It sounds like you voted for a judge or two, but then became disenchanted based on a subsequent court appearance you had before them.
And this is the problem when people evaluate judges solely based on being upset about how a judge ruled on an individual case.
For example,when I fill in that survey, I will not evaluate a judge unless I have had several appearances before him/her.
If I have that requisite experience before them, and they seem unprepared, or exercise favoritism, or have a poor demeanor, or appear weak on the law, then I evaluate them accordingly.
But if I have only one appearance before them, and they seem prepared, conduct the hearing in a fair and appropriate matter, but simply rule against my legal position, I don't think it is fair to eviscerate them on the survey or on social media–unless they were so blatantly wrong that no rational judge could rule that way.
But we as attorneys can be very self-assured, convinced we are right, and then shocked when a judge rules against us. But the last time I felt that way, I submitted the situation to six attorney colleagues for their view. Most of them agreed with my positon, but also observed that it is not necessarily clearly unreasonable or violative of the law for the judge to rule in the other direction.
So, if you voted for a couple judges based on some real experience with them over time, and then subsequent to your vote you lost an isolated motion before each of them, that, in and of itself, may not be a sufficient basis to regret your vote.
T
11:06 sounds too reasonable and level-headed for my purpsoes.
I prefer attorneys who have real passion, who are colorful, cocky, supremely confident, and who think they are right even when they are not.
11:06 sounds like one of those quiet, nerdy types who likes to fanatically deconstruct obscure points, and hides out in their office researching–seldom appearing in court or interacting with clients, etc.
But now that I may have hurt 11:06's feelings, I must give the devil his due.
I agree with the point that when we evaluate and rate judges, and decide who to support in elections, it should be based on some real experience with that judge, and not just we are pissed off because we lost our last motion before them.
11:06 sounds like a judge.
So the judges want to use the judging the judges percentages to vote for them, but then Bonnie Bulla wants you to ignore it, because any attorney who is against her lost in front of her. Logical, consistent argument.
1:13, well, as you well know, that has been the standard all along.
Highly rated judges boast about the results and give kudos to the survey as being scientific, highly accurate and comprehensive.
Judges rated in the middle tend to say nothing, neither good nor bad, about the survey.
But poorly rated judges dismiss the survey as nothing more than a tool where a few disgruntled attorneys(who lost before the judge, and rightfully so according to the judge) can band together, and vent their venom and drive the judge's numbers down.
But even far more offensive, and even far more illogically, the lowly rated judge will invariably claim they are rated low because they are extremely knowledgeable and very well-prepared, and that they do not tolerate bullshit or unprepared attorneys, but instead properly, and unwaveringly, enforce the and follow the law. And that is supposedly why attorneys dislike and resent them.
But by taking this approach lowly-rated judges expose their own ignorance, malice, and completely throw their colleagues under the bus. They don't seem to realize that when they offer such a defense and explanation, that it must logically flow that their highly rated colleagues lack minimal legal knowledge, are ill-prepared, do not follow and enforce the law, allow attorneys to ignore all rules and be completely unprepared, and consistently allow attorneys to indulge in all manner of bullshit.
Which all dovetails into a somewhat broader topic–abusive judges. These disturbed bullies and min-tyrants fall back on the tired rationalization that they are simply following the law, enforcing their orders and not putting up with any bullshit. All of which suggests that their colleagues of sound demeanor do not enforce their orders and are only too happy to tolerate and indulge all forms of bullshit from attorneys.
2:43–I'm an aging fart who has practiced well over three decades.
I used to claim to be thick-skinned and that as long as a judge was knowledgeable, prepared, and accurate as to their rulings, that is what is really important, and that it is thus relatively unimportant if the judge yells at me(for no justifiable reason) and has a surly and mean temperament.
At the time, older attorneys told me that I would get good and sick of these types of judges, and that I would evolve over time to change my view, and boy were they right.
Certainly legal knowledge, preparedness, precision and accuracy of rulings is critical but nothing gets a judge more unpopular, more quickly, than a foul and unpleasant temperament.
And this is supported by the survey. Judges who seem quite knowledgeable and well-prepared, but who have a foul and vile demeanor, usually receive low retention scores. Meanwhile, pleasant judges who seem to not match that surly judge's knowledge or preparedness, will often score much higher.
Practicing law is hard enough. It ages one 15 years. No one appreciates being yelled at for doing their job, and doing it well.
I cannot vote for Bonnie Bulla for Nevada Court of Appeals, because she is hearing cases on appeal that she decided in the lower court. A complete conflict if interest.
There are more experienced folks than Bulla. No loss.
Speaking of judges and judicial elections, one incumbent has released a new ad campaign attacking the incumbent for being a defense attorney.
The electorate is becoming more liberal and youth oriented, which means they will focus on the rights of the criminally accused. Plus these younger voters are often suspicious of law enforcement, including police and prosecutors(particularly in our present tumultuous times).
So, considering that, is it at all effective to run ads insisting that because one's opponent is a criminal defense attorney that such means they are committed to putting pedophiles, and other sordid scum, back on the street so they can re-victimize us?
There may be some older, ultra-conservative, less educated demographic that this is still effective with, but I suspect this demographic is really dwindling.
Also, does it raise ethical issues if a sitting judge shows such utter contempt and ignorance for the critical constitutional underpinnings involved when they dismiss all defense attorneys as being morally bankrupt scum who are gleefully committed to release the pedophiles, thugs, rapists and murders back on the street to re-offend?
Even considering that desperate means are often tolerated in campaigns, is this going too far considering that the candidate behind such an attack is a sitting judge, who is required to comply with the Judicial Code?
There's a candidate for judge who is consistently referred to in "voter guides" as "well-respected" by peers. I wonder who the heck these newspapers are talking to. Every single attorney I've spoken to, other than those who are on the same team as the candidate, has nothing but contempt for this attorney, both in terms of skill and personality. Anyone else see this with attorneys they work with/against?
I like Trevor Atkin but his latest ad saying that "It is important to have a judge who has lived in Las Vegas all of his life" is ridiculous. I don't care that you (or Phil Aurbach) had a paper route here. You are the better candidates in your races because you are dedicated to the community now.
12:57–that's the problem with opinion-based statements. No one has to prove or support them as they would need to prove or support specific assertions of fact.
Something like "most highly-rated judge on Judging The Judges Survey" can be easily established as either true or not.
But the most vile,dishonorable, abusive, incompetent, ill-prepared, demeaning, obstructionist, universally reviled attorney can trumpet that they are "Held in the highest regard by their colleagues", and no one can do anything about such patently false statement.
Such candidate would never be required to provide a list of attorneys(with contact info.) who hold the candidate in such high esteem.
I pretty much always support Trump, but I do not understand limiting student visas. Why is this a good idea? Seems like a hit to our economy and I see no benefit. Is this just a play in his pissing match with China? Or is this some sort of attempt to appease his base?
Still voting Trump cause I don't hate America, but really disappointed in his decision here.
"Hit to the economy and no benefit" is pretty much Trump's go-to plan. TPP? Let's pull out and cede to China most of the influence on policy-making in the region. Trade wars he started? Let's slap tariffs on goods and make American consumers (not the overseas manufacturers) pay more. Media not being nice? Let's literally close the Mexico-US border for no damn reason (talking 2019, not covid-related).
Limiting student visas is just part of Steve Miller's overarching dream of ending non-white immigration pretty much entirely. Which is, again, par for the course of "hit to the economy with no benefit" since international students contributed $41 billion to the economy in 2018, but that number is falling pretty hard as international students go elsewhere (for example, in 2018, 90% of Indians studying abroad came here, but in the coming year, that number will drop to 77%). No student wants to pay full tuition for a degree they may not be able to legally finish in the time allotted.
If you expect anything else, you're backing the wrong horse. His economy wasn't particularly strong, but it was being supported by the Fed's low rates. Unfortunately, the Fed used up its rounds propping up his economy, so when monetary policy might have actually been useful, there was nothing left in the chamber. Again, par for a Trump course.