- Quickdraw McLaw
- 43 Comments
- 146 Views
Over in District Court Department 23, Judge Stefany A. Miley is seeking reelection against Craig Friedberg. Vying for the open bench in District Court Department 24 are Jim Crockett and Joe Hardy, Jr. (Why are these two running against each other? What do you think about a system where judicial candidates are all in a pool and it says vote for 10 or however many open seats there are with top vote getters taking the bench–too crazy?) And in District Court Department 25, Sean P. Connell is challenging Judge Kathleen Delaney.
Who should be elected in Department 23?
Who should be elected in Department 24?
Who should be elected in Department 25?
A lot of people talk sh*t about Judge Miley cause she's good looking, but she is always prepared, has always been fair to me, and isn't condescending when she puts the robe on. She'll get my vote every time. The two guys? No idea who they are. And while Delaney goes out of her way to draw Rosie O'Donnell comparisons, she is smart and fair
7:32 — I agree 100%. Spot on–I am so tired of the unconscious (or conscious) sexism in these polls. Miley and Delaney are both good judges.
Preach.
I wouldn't say Miley is a good judge. I've been in her court a few times and it was clear that she hadn't read the filings. That said, I don't know much about her opponent.
I like her face.
Miley is never prepared. Ever. She is always scribbling furiously, trying desperately to figure out what is going on in even the simplest of cases. One of the 2 or 3 worst judges on the bench IMHO, and it has nothing to do with her gender.
I don't agree. I've appeared in front of Judge Miley on a number of occasions and she has always been prepared (and there have been some pretty complicated and contested issues).
Miley isn't bright and isn't a good judge.
She isn't even really very good looking any more.
She wasn't a good lawyer.
Since failing the bar in 1995, Miley has skated by on her looks, social abilities, and willingness to say the right things to the right people. She is a perfect judge for Clark County.
If that's sexist, so be it. Sometimes the truth hurts.
And no, this isn't her opponent.
I have had positive experiences appearing before Judge Miley. I have no real complaints about how she handled any matter. However, it's tempting to vote for Friedberg just to get rid of her overbearing, wannabe Marshal.
Can Crockett explain why his firm writes a sizeable monthly check to the PAC Citizens for Justice and where this money goes? Eglet, Horton, and other "influential" plaintiff's firms give thousands in total every month to CfJ. CfJ is affiliated with NJA, which already charges membership dues. What legal changes, mandates and candidates are these attorneys funneling funds towards via this political action group? Thanks.
Hello Insurance Defense Bar!!!
The CFJ is the PAC arm of the NJA. Unfortunately, the membership dues are not enough to protect the citizens of Nevada. The CFJ makes political donations to state assembly and senator candidates. However, they do not make donations to judicial candidates. The NJA is constantly fighting in Carson City to stop legislation that hurts citizens. For example, the NJA supported a bill 2 sessions ago to raise the mandatory minimums for car insurance, which is 15/30. These minimums have been in place since 1954 and are some of the lowest in the nation.
Aside from Jim Crocket's support of the NJA and CFJ he is an excellent lawyer and will make a great judge. In fact, I believe he will be harder on plaintiff lawyers than any other group as he will not tolerate lazy and stupid shit many plaintiff lawyers pull.
Just like Judge Israel and Judge Williams are harder on plaintiff lawyers than any other group? Oh wait, never mind.
And to further ensure justice for all, NJA will be hosting, wining and dining certain district court judges in Napa Oct. 16 to 18 as well. So nice to ensure impartiality on the esteemed bench for the rest of the year.
In response to your question, "What do you think about a system where judicial candidates are all in a pool and it says vote for 10 or however many open seats there are with top vote getters taking the bench?" Yes, that is a good idea. Judges should not "own" a specific department. Electing the ten candidates in the entire pool most fit for judicial office makes more sense and is more efficient than eliminating good candidates who are "paired up" in a department specific race and only one can win. Let the chief judge dole out the work assignments based on successful candidates' background and appropriate qualifications. Of course, a member of the general public might be too unaware of who the candidates are to choose ten out of a larger block. Further, if the judicial races were staggered so that you only chose 3 or 5 candidates at once this concept is more workable, because it would be easier to research each candidate's qualifications.
Yes. You could stagger the elections so they are every 2 years and we don't have to elect all 52 judges at once.
While I agree with October 3, 2014 at 9:48 AM that staggering re-election every two years is an excellent idea, I cannot support the pooled candidate approach. It's an understandable but flawed attempt to deal with some of the problems in the current system. I can no more support than I can support the same plan as it currently exists for council elections in some cities. It dilutes the power of the electorate to zero in on specific officials; it also has a tendency to marginalize minorities. Far better to take the time to try and make the effort to persuade people who don''t happen to read this blog that a Missouri Plan would be a good idea and filter judges at the point of entry to the bench. How many of you reading this have spoken to service clubs, knocked on doors, or gathered signatures for a petition to bring that about? But I like the staggered elections idea.
AT 7:55 AM, yes, what he said…that would be wonderful
It could also reduce dirty politics and mudslinging against an opponent, which cheapened the judicial election process, because candidates would have a block of opponents. They would then be inclined to focus on promoting their own personal positive traits to differentiate them as the most desirable candidate in the block to vote for. Candidates could interact more positively because none is a direct threat to another, since several can be selected.
Makes too much sense to ever be accepted in Las Vegas. And what if that put Dave Thomas out of biz? (yippee) and all the sign makers/visual polluters? Sounds too Utopian for us. Rats!!!!
You are right, Thomas couldn't bump anyone out of filing against "his" candidate in a certain dept, because all interested filers would be welcome. Might put a huge dent in all the self-promoting "endorsement" groups who charge large fees for candidates to participate in their group's vetting process. Some of those groups couldn't discern actual qualifications if they couldn't just pick one vs. another.
@7:55 this is a good solution to current shortcomings of our system! Several poorly performing and poorly demeanored judges were handed their jobs for another 6 years, without giving voters a say in whether they were appropriate to hold judicial office. Some potential challengers were intimidated to file against them specifically for fear of repercussions. By implementing a "block" voting approach, these underperformers could never be freely handed their jobs again, which would re-enable voters to choose their most qualified candidates of the group.
O my! Betsy Gonzalez, Gloria Sturman and Jessie Walsh are cringing in their girdles right now at this revolutionary thought
I like it!
@7:55. Brilliant solution whose time has come. I am sure the folks at the CFJ and the NJA will rally around this common-sense idea because their only interest is to "protect the citizens of Nevada" with no other ulterior motives whatsoever 🙂
I love 10:34 a.m.!!
At the very least, any judicial incumbent who is unopposed at the clsoe of candidate filing should not get an automatic free pass to another 6 years! The law should be reformed to require all unopposed judicial incumbents to seek voter's approval/affirmation via a retention election vote. It would not cost the State any extra money to provide this service, because they would already be preparing a printed ballot for the primaries in May anyways. This ensures voters have a participatory voice in who serves as their qualified judges. Any campaign bullying of potential candidates or hijinx would be for naught.
At the very least, any judicial incumbent who is unopposed at the close of candidate filing should not get an automatic free pass to another 6 years! The law should be reformed to require all unopposed judicial incumbents to seek voter's approval/affirmation via a retention election vote. It would not cost the State any extra money to provide this service, because they would already be preparing a printed ballot for the primaries in May anyways. This ensures voters have a participatory voice in who serves as their qualified judges. Any campaign bullying of potential candidates or hijinx would be for naught.
Craig Friedberg would make a decent judge. Referred clients to him and he handled them nicely even though he did not take their case (Fair Credit stuff). He is a smart and experienced attorney. He is sensible and has a nice demeanor. I understand he is running a vigorous campaign.
Talk to some of the people who used to work with him during his days at Rawlings Olson Cannon. They may change your mind.
How long ago would that be? Are you speaking about 16 or 17 years ago. C'mon. I just know that I sent Craig Friedberg a client who was a victim of identity theft (loan taken out in a client's name) and that he helped the lady client. Never charged her a nickel. Client was impressed.
Friedberg has my vote.
You are looking at a snapshot — they worked with him for years. "Sensible" and "has a nice demeanor" are not terms that would be used to describe Craig.
Friedberg is not an ideal candidate for judge. If you call 5 people showing up to his campaign parties including him and his family, then he is running a vigorous campaign. Believe me, Miley is a better candidate.
Picking Hardy over Crockett.
Why? Based on the numbers, it looks like has a strong get-out-the vote effort going….
interesting old article from LA Times about Las Vegas judicial elections. http://www.latimes.com/la-na-justice080606-story.html#page=5
At the very least, any judicial incumbent who is unopposed at the close of candidate filing should not get an automatic free pass to another 6 years! The law should be reformed to require all unopposed judicial incumbents to seek voter's approval/affirmation via a retention election vote. It would not cost the State any extra money to provide this service, because they would already be preparing a printed ballot for the primaries in May anyways. This ensures voters have a participatory voice in who serves as their qualified judges. Any campaign bullying of potential candidates or hijinx would be for naught.
Judge Delaney acts like pro per litigants waste the courts time and hands out summary judgment against them without reading and understanding the facts she forgets it's the public that elected her however she shows respect for pro per litigants in her courtroom while screwing them but who cares anyway
Uh, 10:14, about 90% of the time, pro per litigants DO waste the court's time. The other 10.99999% of the time, they actually prepare with something that isn't a website with a lot of bad capitalization. Of course, the other .000001% of the time, you get a Clarence Gideon.
uh 7:27 well Your Honor you would be quick to throw a pro per litigant in jail if they committed perjury but you seem to look the other way when attorneys blatantly lie to you and commit perjury I witnessed such a case before you it was a pro so litigant that got sued by an attorney that failed to comply with every single court rule and did not comply with your orders even admitted to receiving 16.1 discovery from the guy but you just disposed of his counter claims anyway. I understand it's in the appeals court
This is 7:27. First, I'm not your judge. Second, just to the left of your Shift key, there are strange little symbols. Those are called punctuation marks. It would do you well to learn how and when to use a comma or period. Third, many times, what you might consider "16.1 discovery," the rest of the legal world considers "irrelevant garbage that won't defeat a Motion for Summary Judgment."
7:27, I take it that math was not your forte. 90 + 10.99999 + .0000001 = 100.9999901.
I voting for Friedberg just in hopes to get rid of Miley's bailiff.