- Quickdraw McLaw
- 16 Comments
- 138 Views
With early voting a little over a month away, it’s time to start looking at who should get your votes this fall. You can see a full list of candidates and offices on the fall ballot here. We’ll be giving you a chance to comment on each of the judicial races and to enlighten us on who we should be voting for this fall.
We’ll begin with the open bench in Department 2. The candidates are Richard Scotti and John G. Watkins. You can see some more information on them at edjudicateclarkcounty.com. Who gets your vote and why?
For those of you wanting to discuss the news:
- Bethany Barnes (@BetsBarnes) has done a follow up piece on the mystery of the DA’s witness payment account. [RJ]
- Jeff German (@JGermanRJ) has more details on the HOA scandal including the role of attorney Keith Gregory. [RJ]
Scotti and Watkins are both excellent candidates. It's kind of silly that they're running against one another.
Watkins brings more diverse and appropriate civil and criminal law experience to Dept. 2, which is its mandate. Scotti brings construction defect plaintiff experience only.
Difficult choice – two good candidates.
Watkins for the exact reasons stated by 8:50. Scotti is an excellent civil attorney, but that has been the scope of his career. Watkins brings a broader level of experience and a bit more personality to the bench.
What about the age difference?
Scotti here – he's a high-level civil litigator and he does some defense work as well. I've had a few cases with him and he is a nice enough guy. But, the reason I'd vote for him is that I think he's smart and will do his homework before ruling. There is too little of either attribute on the bench right now. I'm sure Watkins is a fine candidate, but Scotti gets my vote because I think he could take on complex cases right away.
Watkins hands down. The thought of a civil attorney making decisions in a criminal case is terrorizing. It's not about a person's good nature. Scotti may indeed also be a good person and skilled at civil, but lack of criminal experience is a HUGE drawback.
And the converse is true. Please not another criminal practitioner judging my civil case. IMHO, the learning curve is higher for criminal to civil, than civil to criminal.
There are so many idiots running in other departments (and already on the bench) that it seems a waste that both of these qualified candidates can't obtain a seat. Seriously, wouldn't you rather see Scotti or Watkins on the bench than most of the hacks already there?
My vote goes to Watkins, no question. I practice in both the civil and criminal arena, and I think Watkins is the superior choice.
This seems odd. If Scotti wins, Dept 2 will become a civil department only. The more senior judges will claim the criminal parts.
How did you reach this conclusion? Isn't it up to the chief judge who gets what assignments? Couldn't Dept 2. then end up being a construction defect department in place of 19 (Earl)?
No, that honor is falling to Cadish (Dept. 6) and Weise (Dept. 30.)
Did Watkins and Scotti sort out their campaign media mailer squabble? It's been over 3 months since this blog reported on it.
I like Scotti. He's been involved and done well in complex litigation cases. I'd prefer to see more judges with real law firm experience. Sorry crim folk, your issues are just generally much less complicated.
So as to Gregory– the evidence is that the client contacted the attorney before the Client did things; therefore the attorney is responsibile for the acts of the client? Frightening.