I am opposed to electing judges, but Steve Wolfson's epiphany is just laughable. A bunch of women public defenders get elected to the bench and now all of a sudden he's concerned about electing judges. Come on!
Exactly! And his reasoning for this is first that qualifications and experience should matter, but the next sentence complains that there was no correlation between campaign effort/fundraising. I get that there's an argument that fundraising can be tied to experience/qualifications, but in reality, it's more closely tied to political affiliation and who the candidate/their campaign manager knows.
Experience played no roll in this elections, It was all about gender. If the ballot listed the last name and the candidate's first initial, we would have had a much different outcome.
Does the appointment -> election to retain process mean the judge would face a challenger or simply a yes or no question on the ballot? That seems like the best system after this cycle.
Anyone who thinks these PDs will be good on the district court bench is delusional. The only one remotely qualified for the job (and probably the only one that would make it through the screening process if it was appointment based) lost her primary to Hardy.
Of course all those women judges didnt win legitimately.
Nevada was one of many transit points for electronic ballot stuffing.
If you steal an election, what wont you do?
Dave Thomas needs to hire Mueller for his recall efforts for Fumo, Ganz and other losers. Does that mean that the votes for his wife, Nancy Allf we're fraud, too?
Gender may have had some influence, but it was not universally the deciding factor. Mike Villani prevailed over Anna Albertson and Eric Johnson beat Dawn Hooker. Wolfson is trying to deflect attention from the fact that few, if any, of the candidates he endorsed (Hunt, Bare, Ganz, Aurbach, Lee) won their races. Endorsements by the Prosecutors' Association and law enforcement groups were also of little value this election season. The "law and order" rhetoric is losing its appeal with voters, so Wolfson is looking for a new source of influence.
The election had nothing to do with gender of experience, and everything to do with Emerge Nevada and bloc voting. Our city is doomed.
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2020 5:55 pm
When I started out, Shearing was the only female judge and she was mocked by many. Today a woman can get elected just by placing her name on the ballot. I truly hope this new group of female judges rise to the challenge.
Shearing was mocked because of lack of talent and wisdom. Affirmative action poster child. She took the place of a qualified candidate. That is the whole problem with the intersectionality principle that has been raised to unquestionable dogma: it is reverse discrimination pure and simple: a truly qualified candidate is disqualified because he has the wrong sexual organs, sexual preference, or skin color.
The Left drools at the prospect of the very men who built this country become pariahs. We know how this ends.
The fact that this new crop of judges is beholden to no one is probably a good thing. Maybe the "Good Old Boys Network" just evaporated. Important question though: to whom did Eglet Adams give money? We don't need another Jesse Walsh.
Has Craig Mueller filed any more election lawsuits, or did he just have three?
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2020 6:29 pm
Different legal subject: I saw on the Internet (yes, I know everything there is true) that the LGBTQ+ organization has "trademarked" those letters and has added a "P" for PedoSexual. 1) Can an organization trademark letters (NFL comes to mind)? 2) If that "Pedo" refers to illegal activity between an adult and child, wouldn't that be illegal to promote (I Pray to God it would be)? Serious legal responses only please
Yeah right. Calling yourself a technological relic does not absolve you of repeating this garbage. It's a nasty, disgusting trope that's been repeated about gay people for decades. Do better. Use google ffs
@11:12
Stop being a troll. If 10:29 didn't know but was asking, you shouldn't find fault. (No, I am not 10:29, but there is too much judgmental trolling on this site).
11:12 here…I think 10:29 is the troll. It's gross that someone, in 2020, would post that question. It's not an innocent question. Plus, this is a law blog. I'm going to venture that 10:29 is a lawyer, or at least a reasonably educated person. That kind of question is just giving credibility to long debunked biases against gay people. There's no excuse for it. Calling oneself a technological relic because one is too lazy to google something is also bullcrap. Google your gross questions…don't air your 80s prejudices in public. Try to have some decency in spite of yourself.
10:29 here – What is wrong with those giving me a hard time. I'm a retired lawyer who looks at this site from time to time. I saw something on the Internet, acknowledged that there are deep problems with the Internet as a source, and asked for only serious responses. I thanked the person for providing me a way to research rumors in the future. I repeated no claim but actually posted it as a questionable assertion (by pointing to the unreliability of the source). I realize I will sound like a very old codger but I must say back in my day, before the Internet, I don't believe people would have responded to an innocent question with such vitriol. You know, someday you too may grow older and not familiar with the technology at that time and I hope people are kinder to you than you have been to me.
My response has nothing to do with your familiarity with technology. You didn't google your nasty question, but you had the technological wherewithal to post it on a blog. You can clearly maneuver through the internet as it suits you. You chose to post a long debunked bit of vitriol about a marginalized community. You chose to air that disgusting bit of bigotry. And now you are the victim. Poor old codger wants to be a bigoted jerk towards gay people, but not accept accountability for it. Boo Hoo. I care more about the high rate of suicides in gay teens. I care more about the fact that gay teens are 3x more likely to contemplate suicide than straight teens. I care more about gay children who are abused and rejected by their families of origin because of disgusting stereotypes like the one you posted. Your feelings don't mean a whole lot to me in this particular instance. I hope when I'm an old codger I have the presence of mind to be humble and act with kindness and keep my critical thinking skills intact.
10:29, don't fret 11:12. They are just engaged in pointless virtue signaling without remembering to include their name to receive the Internet points they so desperately crave for launching into this pointless assault on you.
No…when I write my comments, I can see the little pull down box that allows me to use my google login or select anonymous. I commented anonymously because the issue matters, not me. It matters to me and it matters to my gay colleagues and friends who might read this. I do not need points. I will stand up for them anonymously or otherwise. It's not about me. It's about changing your behavior so that you stop hurting other people with your nasty bigotry. 10:29 is not the victim.
But no one has seen fit to respond to 10:29's legal questions, of whether a group can trademark an acronym or whether it is legal to advocate for illegal activities.
And, to 11:12, "80s prejudices"? Many of us are MUCH older than that! And your youth does not excuse you for being a jerk!
The LGBT community is not represented by the so-called leaders. Like so many social movements, it has been hijacked by leftwing loons who have turned it into an aggressive anti-liberty, anti-family, and anti-capitalism movement. Ugly. No self-respecting alternative lifestyle lover would be caught dead supporting these ugly anti-American psychos.
11:12's type of response is a fine example of how progressives and Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. That kind of over-the-top response does nothing but alienate others and make the speaker appear like a militant fanatic.
I'd suggest: (1) assume people are acting in good faith, until proven otherwise (and no, 10:39's post does not prove otherwise); (2) aim to educate, not denigrate; (3) if nothing else, out of your own self-interest, don't be such an ass. You catch more flies with honey.
@5:36…what could possibly have been going on w the gay community in the 80s? What, oh what, could it have been? Not like there's a history of ignorance and prejudice harming the gay community that is directly relevant to that decade.
@6:57…no. There was nothing over the top re my response. OP did act in bad faith and repeated a disgusting, bigoted trope about gay people. Since OP has the technological wherewithal to post on a blog, OP clearly has the ability to google it without spreading hate and misinformation. So 1) OP was NOT acting in good faith; 2) I'm not a teacher – ask stupid questions, get the answer you deserve; 3) I'm a lawyer – being an ass comes with the territory. And I'm not both-siding some disgusting bigot who wants to hide their hatred and bigotry behind old age and polite manners. Keep your flies.
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2020 6:33 pm
The only active election-related lawsuit in Nevada is Law v. Whitmer, an election challenge filed by Shana Weir in Carson City. The GOP presidential electors are suing the Democratic presidential electors on basically the same claims that have been repeatedly tossed. The Trump campaign claims there's an evidentiary hearing on Dec. 3 (no way to confirm online), but a Motion to Dismiss has been filed.
And yes, the Nevada Supreme Court has already certified the election results.
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2020 6:36 pm
This may seem nit-picky but Good Lord Ms. Fiore does not appear to be too literate (see what I did there): "'Great man. To [sic] young to be gone,' wrote Las Vegas City Councilwoman Michele Fiore."
For some reason, only a small percentage of the population is aware of the meaning of the words "too" or "you're".
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2020 7:35 pm
As far as electing judges, we had our shot ten years ago. There was a big push headed by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to change the system to elected judges. It was a great idea: appointments followed by uncontested retention elections.
However, and ever so ironically, in a one-size-fits-all movement, she tried to push the idea in Nevada by saying it would allow for more representation of woman and minorities on the Bench. Unable to "read the room," we had woman already serving the Bench and the Judge Halverson scandal going on in the background (a morbidly obese disabled woman who beat a white male opponent as I recall).
Of course, as it the issue was presented to the electorate, it failed.
11:35–woman are not merely proportionately well represented on RJC bench, but they now dominate it. So, any past inequities have far more than been corrected, as the pendulum has swung very severely in favor of woman.
So, when people now make the type of presentation that Justice O'Connor once did, it should not be based on gender concerns, but should simply be focused on the fact that with straight elections, with no pre-screening qualifying committees and the like, we wind up with some dreadful and woefully unqualified candidates winning–both male and female.
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2020 7:41 pm
Let's hear it for our Congress which cannot figure out a way to get $1200 stimulus checks to the American people, crippled by a pandemic, by the end of the year. Incompetence all around.
You think that's a problem? It won't hold a Candle to the way Sisolak will handle (think DETR, DMV, etc.) the distribution of any Covid vaccine in the Silver State!
I am past the point of thinking that Sisolak is merely a shortsighted dimwit. No, he is a blatantly evil. I can't utter his name around my wife. She is still waiting for DETR to process her claim — but hot damn if Sisolak can't fabricate tens of thousands of fake ballots on demand! It's about priorities.
I get all the rage at Sisolak over DETR. Totally unacceptable. But how does an educate person or a lawyer get to this place: "but hot damn if Sisolak can't fabricate tens of thousands of fake ballots on demand!"
I mean yikes. This is satire, right? And I'm just too stupid to catch on, correct?
Shifting topics, but before the holiday there was discussion about what recently defeated incumbent judges might be good fits for certain firms.
And perhaps those comments were valid, an I am in no way stating, or implying, anything about any judge who just failed to be re-elected.
But, historically and anecdotally speaking, most of the times these firms get burned when they hire a defeated District Court Judge.
A main problem is that there have been defeated judges who act like entitled prima donnas. They are not remotely able or willing to keep their nose to the grindstone and work at anything that vaguely resembles a 40 hour work week. Instead, they perceive that their value is not to actually "work' much but instead to serve as a rain maker. But the problem is that in addition to not working much, these defeated judges don't tend to bring in too much business.
When there are exceptions it is usually a long-serving, high-rated judge who voluntarily resigns from the bench to accept a lucrative offer with a prominent law firm. Some of those foremr judges are able and willing to work very industriously, plus do legitimately attract a degree of business
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2020 9:02 pm
12:27–you generalize a bit, but I believe you are essentially correct.
Part of the problem is a disconnect during the hiring process. If a firm thinks the former judge will not attract much business, but is still relatively young and viewed as someone whose judicial experience helps make them a better lawyer, then that should be made clear–your judicial experience is a bonus, but you are primarily here to work hard as an attorney.
Or, instead,if the former judge is truly perceived as being someone who can work critical connections and attract business, then that should also be made
clear–you don't have to necessarily bust your ass at the same number of hours of other lawyers with the firm if you truly do deliver some business based on your connections, etc.
So, very clear communication and understanding(and perhaps even an employment contract in certain instances) must occur.
Otherwise, if a firm courts a former judge like that person is some sort of rock star, and expectations and parameters are not clearly set, the dynamic discussed by 12:27 is bound to happen
Guest
Anonymous
November 30, 2020 11:02 pm
Is Adriana Escobar the smartest judge on the bench currently?
I am opposed to electing judges, but Steve Wolfson's epiphany is just laughable. A bunch of women public defenders get elected to the bench and now all of a sudden he's concerned about electing judges. Come on!
Exactly! And his reasoning for this is first that qualifications and experience should matter, but the next sentence complains that there was no correlation between campaign effort/fundraising. I get that there's an argument that fundraising can be tied to experience/qualifications, but in reality, it's more closely tied to political affiliation and who the candidate/their campaign manager knows.
He is Dave Thomas'mouthpiece. I am so glad that many of your candidates lost.
So Wolfson thinks it is a tragedy that a wealthy candidate cannot buy his way into a judicial office any more?
Experience played no roll in this elections, It was all about gender. If the ballot listed the last name and the candidate's first initial, we would have had a much different outcome.
12:09, thank you, Dave Thomas.
Does the appointment -> election to retain process mean the judge would face a challenger or simply a yes or no question on the ballot? That seems like the best system after this cycle.
Anyone who thinks these PDs will be good on the district court bench is delusional. The only one remotely qualified for the job (and probably the only one that would make it through the screening process if it was appointment based) lost her primary to Hardy.
Of course all those women judges didnt win legitimately.
Nevada was one of many transit points for electronic ballot stuffing.
If you steal an election, what wont you do?
https://www.americanpartisan.org/2020/11/generals-flynn-and-mcinerney-interview-with-wvw/
Thank you Craig Mueller.
Dave Thomas needs to hire Mueller for his recall efforts for Fumo, Ganz and other losers. Does that mean that the votes for his wife, Nancy Allf we're fraud, too?
Gender may have had some influence, but it was not universally the deciding factor. Mike Villani prevailed over Anna Albertson and Eric Johnson beat Dawn Hooker. Wolfson is trying to deflect attention from the fact that few, if any, of the candidates he endorsed (Hunt, Bare, Ganz, Aurbach, Lee) won their races. Endorsements by the Prosecutors' Association and law enforcement groups were also of little value this election season. The "law and order" rhetoric is losing its appeal with voters, so Wolfson is looking for a new source of influence.
The district attorney should not be endorsing judges.
I agree.
The election had nothing to do with gender of experience, and everything to do with Emerge Nevada and bloc voting. Our city is doomed.
When I started out, Shearing was the only female judge and she was mocked by many. Today a woman can get elected just by placing her name on the ballot. I truly hope this new group of female judges rise to the challenge.
Shearing was mocked because of lack of talent and wisdom. Affirmative action poster child. She took the place of a qualified candidate. That is the whole problem with the intersectionality principle that has been raised to unquestionable dogma: it is reverse discrimination pure and simple: a truly qualified candidate is disqualified because he has the wrong sexual organs, sexual preference, or skin color.
The Left drools at the prospect of the very men who built this country become pariahs. We know how this ends.
Thank you Craig Mueller.
The fact that this new crop of judges is beholden to no one is probably a good thing. Maybe the "Good Old Boys Network" just evaporated. Important question though: to whom did Eglet Adams give money? We don't need another Jesse Walsh.
Beholden to no one?? They are radical Lefty judges backed by Emerge Nevada, a far left-wing group.
Eeek, facts! Stop it.
Has Craig Mueller filed any more election lawsuits, or did he just have three?
Different legal subject: I saw on the Internet (yes, I know everything there is true) that the LGBTQ+ organization has "trademarked" those letters and has added a "P" for PedoSexual. 1) Can an organization trademark letters (NFL comes to mind)? 2) If that "Pedo" refers to illegal activity between an adult and child, wouldn't that be illegal to promote (I Pray to God it would be)? Serious legal responses only please
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lgbtp-adding-letter/
10:29 here – thank you, I must be a technological relic as I didn't realize there is a whole site devoted to this sort of thing – thanks
Yeah right. Calling yourself a technological relic does not absolve you of repeating this garbage. It's a nasty, disgusting trope that's been repeated about gay people for decades. Do better. Use google ffs
@11:12
Stop being a troll. If 10:29 didn't know but was asking, you shouldn't find fault. (No, I am not 10:29, but there is too much judgmental trolling on this site).
11:12 here…I think 10:29 is the troll. It's gross that someone, in 2020, would post that question. It's not an innocent question. Plus, this is a law blog. I'm going to venture that 10:29 is a lawyer, or at least a reasonably educated person. That kind of question is just giving credibility to long debunked biases against gay people. There's no excuse for it. Calling oneself a technological relic because one is too lazy to google something is also bullcrap. Google your gross questions…don't air your 80s prejudices in public. Try to have some decency in spite of yourself.
10:29 here – What is wrong with those giving me a hard time. I'm a retired lawyer who looks at this site from time to time. I saw something on the Internet, acknowledged that there are deep problems with the Internet as a source, and asked for only serious responses. I thanked the person for providing me a way to research rumors in the future. I repeated no claim but actually posted it as a questionable assertion (by pointing to the unreliability of the source). I realize I will sound like a very old codger but I must say back in my day, before the Internet, I don't believe people would have responded to an innocent question with such vitriol. You know, someday you too may grow older and not familiar with the technology at that time and I hope people are kinder to you than you have been to me.
My response has nothing to do with your familiarity with technology. You didn't google your nasty question, but you had the technological wherewithal to post it on a blog. You can clearly maneuver through the internet as it suits you. You chose to post a long debunked bit of vitriol about a marginalized community. You chose to air that disgusting bit of bigotry. And now you are the victim. Poor old codger wants to be a bigoted jerk towards gay people, but not accept accountability for it. Boo Hoo. I care more about the high rate of suicides in gay teens. I care more about the fact that gay teens are 3x more likely to contemplate suicide than straight teens. I care more about gay children who are abused and rejected by their families of origin because of disgusting stereotypes like the one you posted. Your feelings don't mean a whole lot to me in this particular instance. I hope when I'm an old codger I have the presence of mind to be humble and act with kindness and keep my critical thinking skills intact.
10:29, don't fret 11:12. They are just engaged in pointless virtue signaling without remembering to include their name to receive the Internet points they so desperately crave for launching into this pointless assault on you.
No…when I write my comments, I can see the little pull down box that allows me to use my google login or select anonymous. I commented anonymously because the issue matters, not me. It matters to me and it matters to my gay colleagues and friends who might read this. I do not need points. I will stand up for them anonymously or otherwise. It's not about me. It's about changing your behavior so that you stop hurting other people with your nasty bigotry. 10:29 is not the victim.
Just commenting to show solidarity with 11:12 (and follow-ups). Do better, 10:29.
I stand with #10:29!
But no one has seen fit to respond to 10:29's legal questions, of whether a group can trademark an acronym or whether it is legal to advocate for illegal activities.
And, to 11:12, "80s prejudices"? Many of us are MUCH older than that! And your youth does not excuse you for being a jerk!
The LGBT community is not represented by the so-called leaders. Like so many social movements, it has been hijacked by leftwing loons who have turned it into an aggressive anti-liberty, anti-family, and anti-capitalism movement. Ugly. No self-respecting alternative lifestyle lover would be caught dead supporting these ugly anti-American psychos.
11:12's type of response is a fine example of how progressives and Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. That kind of over-the-top response does nothing but alienate others and make the speaker appear like a militant fanatic.
I'd suggest: (1) assume people are acting in good faith, until proven otherwise (and no, 10:39's post does not prove otherwise); (2) aim to educate, not denigrate; (3) if nothing else, out of your own self-interest, don't be such an ass. You catch more flies with honey.
@5:36…what could possibly have been going on w the gay community in the 80s? What, oh what, could it have been? Not like there's a history of ignorance and prejudice harming the gay community that is directly relevant to that decade.
@6:57…no. There was nothing over the top re my response. OP did act in bad faith and repeated a disgusting, bigoted trope about gay people. Since OP has the technological wherewithal to post on a blog, OP clearly has the ability to google it without spreading hate and misinformation. So 1) OP was NOT acting in good faith; 2) I'm not a teacher – ask stupid questions, get the answer you deserve; 3) I'm a lawyer – being an ass comes with the territory. And I'm not both-siding some disgusting bigot who wants to hide their hatred and bigotry behind old age and polite manners. Keep your flies.
The only active election-related lawsuit in Nevada is Law v. Whitmer, an election challenge filed by Shana Weir in Carson City. The GOP presidential electors are suing the Democratic presidential electors on basically the same claims that have been repeatedly tossed. The Trump campaign claims there's an evidentiary hearing on Dec. 3 (no way to confirm online), but a Motion to Dismiss has been filed.
And yes, the Nevada Supreme Court has already certified the election results.
This may seem nit-picky but Good Lord Ms. Fiore does not appear to be too literate (see what I did there): "'Great man. To [sic] young to be gone,' wrote Las Vegas City Councilwoman Michele Fiore."
For some reason, only a small percentage of the population is aware of the meaning of the words "too" or "you're".
As far as electing judges, we had our shot ten years ago. There was a big push headed by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to change the system to elected judges. It was a great idea: appointments followed by uncontested retention elections.
However, and ever so ironically, in a one-size-fits-all movement, she tried to push the idea in Nevada by saying it would allow for more representation of woman and minorities on the Bench. Unable to "read the room," we had woman already serving the Bench and the Judge Halverson scandal going on in the background (a morbidly obese disabled woman who beat a white male opponent as I recall).
Of course, as it the issue was presented to the electorate, it failed.
11:35–woman are not merely proportionately well represented on RJC bench, but they now dominate it. So, any past inequities have far more than been corrected, as the pendulum has swung very severely in favor of woman.
So, when people now make the type of presentation that Justice O'Connor once did, it should not be based on gender concerns, but should simply be focused on the fact that with straight elections, with no pre-screening qualifying committees and the like, we wind up with some dreadful and woefully unqualified candidates winning–both male and female.
Let's hear it for our Congress which cannot figure out a way to get $1200 stimulus checks to the American people, crippled by a pandemic, by the end of the year. Incompetence all around.
You think that's a problem? It won't hold a Candle to the way Sisolak will handle (think DETR, DMV, etc.) the distribution of any Covid vaccine in the Silver State!
I am past the point of thinking that Sisolak is merely a shortsighted dimwit. No, he is a blatantly evil. I can't utter his name around my wife. She is still waiting for DETR to process her claim — but hot damn if Sisolak can't fabricate tens of thousands of fake ballots on demand! It's about priorities.
I get all the rage at Sisolak over DETR. Totally unacceptable. But how does an educate person or a lawyer get to this place: "but hot damn if Sisolak can't fabricate tens of thousands of fake ballots on demand!"
I mean yikes. This is satire, right? And I'm just too stupid to catch on, correct?
Yes, you are.
Shifting topics, but before the holiday there was discussion about what recently defeated incumbent judges might be good fits for certain firms.
And perhaps those comments were valid, an I am in no way stating, or implying, anything about any judge who just failed to be re-elected.
But, historically and anecdotally speaking, most of the times these firms get burned when they hire a defeated District Court Judge.
A main problem is that there have been defeated judges who act like entitled prima donnas. They are not remotely able or willing to keep their nose to the grindstone and work at anything that vaguely resembles a 40 hour work week. Instead, they perceive that their value is not to actually "work' much but instead to serve as a rain maker. But the problem is that in addition to not working much, these defeated judges don't tend to bring in too much business.
When there are exceptions it is usually a long-serving, high-rated judge who voluntarily resigns from the bench to accept a lucrative offer with a prominent law firm. Some of those foremr judges are able and willing to work very industriously, plus do legitimately attract a degree of business
12:27–you generalize a bit, but I believe you are essentially correct.
Part of the problem is a disconnect during the hiring process. If a firm thinks the former judge will not attract much business, but is still relatively young and viewed as someone whose judicial experience helps make them a better lawyer, then that should be made clear–your judicial experience is a bonus, but you are primarily here to work hard as an attorney.
Or, instead,if the former judge is truly perceived as being someone who can work critical connections and attract business, then that should also be made
clear–you don't have to necessarily bust your ass at the same number of hours of other lawyers with the firm if you truly do deliver some business based on your connections, etc.
So, very clear communication and understanding(and perhaps even an employment contract in certain instances) must occur.
Otherwise, if a firm courts a former judge like that person is some sort of rock star, and expectations and parameters are not clearly set, the dynamic discussed by 12:27 is bound to happen
Is Adriana Escobar the smartest judge on the bench currently?
She has grown on the bench.
Umm, no. I can safely say she is not the smartest.
Thank you, Craig Mueller. 😉
I wish there were more judges like Adriana Escobar. She's very conscientious about reaching the correct decisions.
Ha. Haha. Ha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ha. Haha. Ha.
No.
The judge who had to have sticky notes on her bench to remind her of the difference between "sustained" and "overruled?"
No.