- Quickdraw McLaw
- 20 Comments
- 1062 Views
- The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline is looking into whether Judge Tao improperly used partisan language on a campaign flyer. [RJ]
- Here’s a look at Coyote Springs and the battle over water rights. [TNI]
- The problem with e-scooters. [KNPR]
- This Friday is the public hearing about the proposed revisions to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. Are you ready?
Monday morning and the Courts cannot get ODYSSEY to work? Welcome to 2018.
Has anyone decided to pay for the RJ online since it started charging for a subscription?
hahahaha… no.
If you really want to see what the article says, stopping the page from loading fully will usually get you there. Neither the Sun nor the RJ have improved their sites to the point where they prevent that from happening.
right-click —> Open in link in incognito window —> profit
Hillary Clinton insisted during Sunday morning TV that Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power and Lewinsky "was an adult" as a defense to Bill receiving pleasure from a girl more than 1/2 his age. HRC defended Bill and said "absolutely not" in response to a question about whether he should have resigned after his affair came to light. Is Hillary from another world? She's not in touch with ours. I can't believe so many of you sheep voted for and still support her. The Clinton – Obama party of democrats and their lobbyists are out of touch with the people. The Clinton – Obama control of the democratic party put Trump in office. We need change. Trump was right when he bellowed drain the swamp. We need to drain the swamp and for that reason I'm not supporting any incumbents and if they're both new to elected office I'm flipping a coin.
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"
So the fact that you don't like Hillary or Obama = I refuse to vote for a single incumbent. Can't argue with that.
To: 10:57. Calling those who voted for Hillary unprincipled "sheep" is as unfair as those who condemn all Trump supporters as mindless, bigoted morons who wish to blame others for their short-comings. In fact, many describe his supporters in far-worse terms than that.
Condemning the intelligence, humanity and worth of a person based merely on who they voted for is truly wrong, and also ignores the dynamic that few people truly vote for someone because they really like them and approve of most of their policies–despite people insisting that they are independent and vote for the person rather than the party, statistics proof over 90% of people vote straight party line.
So, although I think you are really off base and grossly unfair in sweeping more than half the voters into condemnation, I agree with you as to how dreadfully Hillary handled the situation with her husband's affairs.
On the one hand, she is a hard-charging advocate for women who claim they have been sexually assaulted, and she insists they should be believed and that it is quite rare that anyone would invent such allegations. But she carves out a clear exception, and a dramatically different standard, for anyone who claims to have been sexually violated or sexually exploited by her husband. Even her most ardent supporters must recognize that serious flaw.
From the Nevada Independent on how Rosen came to be hand picked to run for senate: "That Rosen’s name landed in Reid’s lap at all is thanks to Judge Elissa Cadish, the District Court judge who is running for the Nevada Supreme Court. Cadish was brainstorming people whom Reid and the party may not have thought of to run for the seat when her mind wandered to Rosen — her bridesmaid, friend and synagogue president. Cadish passed Rosen’s name along to Reid."
So Judge Cadish is quite the "non-partisan."
The people obsessed with destroying Cadish need to get laid or smoke more weed.
My view is that it is fair game in this forum for people to criticize judges, including the one mentioned.
That said, it often appears that judges are condemned for ruling against someone on an isolated motion, but no real details are offered, so we really can't tell if the ruling was erroneous.
My view is that, ideally speaking, if an attorney has appeared before a judge a half dozen times or more, and has received both positive rulings as well as adverse rulings from such judge, they may be in a better positon to credibly evaluate the judge than someone who just appeared once, was ruled against, and we don't know what the matter involved.
So, people are of course free to criticize a judge they have only appeared before once, but I always felt that repeated exposure gives one a far better frame of reference.
I had quite a harsh view of certain judges after my initial appearance or two, but as I gained repeated exposure to them, my opinions often changed.
I like Cadish. I am voting for Cadish as more of a legal mind than Tao. However this is entirely fair game. That she scratches the back of someone running for United States Senator from Nevada who could potentially nominate future members of the federal bench and Ninth Circuit is perfectly fair game for commentary and analysis.
I am voting for Tao. I have appeared in front of both of them. Cadish concerns me. The Haig incident. The advertising herself as a Dem. Campaigning with Justice Cherry. All serious issues. She should not be running if she cannot take the criticism.
Of course it's fair game. Anyone running for any public office opens themselves up to criticism. Some schmo running for county commission in Lander County opens himself up to criticism.
I think the issue here is that the constant Cadish bashing here is weak, repetitive, and tiresome. Blog is repetitive. Blog is devoid of persuasive insight.
Tao has a decent shot of winning. To say he is not qualified makes me laugh. He is already an appellate judge. Cadish is not. He has my support. The criticism of her is spot on
It may be that an appellate judge(who many feel is not all that qualified) who is trying to ascend to the Nevada Supreme Court, will not generate much sympathy from too many of us if he attracts negative attention for supposedly referencing his political philosophy.
But as long as we insist on electing our judges, this problem will persist. They say there is no such thing as a non-partisan race(even if the race is technically designated as "non-partisan" with party affiliation not listed next to the candidate's name).
By necessity, candidates will garner a lot of their support, votes, endorsements and finances form the major party they are associated with–whether it be Republican or Democrat. And even though the candidates are only permitted to reveal the party they are registered with if someone specifically asks them, it is totally un-necessary to ask them as it will be clear from their base of support, including who endorses them and what functions they attend, that they are an R or a D.
And if we are going to become selectively indignant about a Nevada judicial candidate who indicates whether they are classified as more liberal-leaning or more conservative-leaning, that is being intellectually dishonest and turning a blind-eye to what is occurring in the highest court of our land.
We just saw a reminder of what a completely partisan undertaking the U.S. Supreme Court has become. The confirmation hearings were a stark reminder of this. But the more insidious proof of this is that, aside from the occasional swing vote tuning matters, a huge percentage of the decisions that have political implications are decided by each justice based on whether they were appointed by a Republican president or whether they were appointed by a Democratic president.
So, we don't necessarily have to like or support the Nevada judge in question to note that this focus on him is unfair, unrealistic, and indicates selective enforcement. Even if he identified himself as liberal-leaning, as 5:11 points out his opponent is also very clearly aligning herself with a certain political party and its main operatives, even though she may not volunteer directly that she is a D or liberal-leaning.
The Tao ad really has me thinking he needs to be removed from the CoA.
No, he doesn't. He should be elected to the NSC.
Tao would make a terrific Supreme Court Justice. We need a sane voice up there. I had a case before him and was presently surprised. But he is running a terrible campaign. Cadish has the female advantage, the Dem advantage, and money from the plaintiff's bar. Cadish is running a very effective campaign. I wonder if there has ever been a male who has defeated a female in a Supreme Court race. I will vote for Tao but fear Cadish will win.
Yes, that insurmountable female advantage that has limited male representation on the Court to 5/7.
On the county level, there is no doubt there is a huge advantage in being a female running against a male–and that is even more true in Family Court.
That dynamic is not negated by the fact that there are currently only two females on the NSC, while there are five males. We simply have not had too many NSC races in recent years where it is male vs. female, and when we have had such a situation, and the male wins, it is usually because of a vastly superior financial advantage as well as much greater state-wide name recognition.
But now that we have a race with a female and a male, and neither of them is a NSC incumbent, and neither of them had much state-wide name recognition going into the race, you will see the female candidate achieve a few more percentage points merely on the gender issue. I'm certainly not complaining about that, and I certainly can understand why many voters consider gender among many other factors. But to claim it's not an issue due to the present composition of the NSC is not valid–at least not as to county races.
On the county races, some people will favor the female candidate regardless of the current composition of the District Court, while others favor the female candidate because they erroneously assume females are not well-represented on the court. They don't realize more than half of the District Court bench is now female, which makes sense from a proportionate stand point because more than half of law students and law graduates are now female.