Can we quit bitching about the judges? You don't like something, then run, otherwise STFU. I ran, I got crushed, but at least I tried. There are definitely judges in that building that I would prefer not to appear in front of, but by and large, they put the work in (there's always an exception). I love the people on here who think that judges don't possess the intellectual capacity to handle their matters. Every time I read those posts i think, 1. You're an insurance defense attorney (cause they're bitter at the world), or 2. they ruled against you. Guess what, you're not always right, your wife or husband prolly tells you that on the daily, accept the ruling, assess what you could've done better, and come back prepared the next time. You're not going to win every time, learn to listen to where you're deficient and fix it, otherwise its a you problem. The biggest problem with every attorney, including myself, is learning to listen and be self critical; judges all have a pattern. Figure it out and tailor your argument accordingly, doing the same thing every time knowing what somebody's tendencies are is just fucktarded.

How is it disingenuous? These people know me and I know them, in Crim the facts dictate the outcome much more than the attorney , albeit there is some play in the in between. The good attorneys live in the in between, the mediocre and the bad do not. Whining about judges does nothing but give you the excuse to pass along to your client, its not an accurate indicator of how you did. That's my whole problem with attorney complaints, there is zero assessment of how you did as an attorney and there is a complete abdication to the judges' rulings as an indictment of what should have happened on the case. If you know what you're doing then you know how a case will turn out, if you don't then its the judges' fault that you did poorly and that is BS. Assess your case and accept the results, its a small percentage that goes against you if you know your case is strong. In all the time I have posted with my name there hasn't been one judge that has acknowledged it, not that it matters to me. I will admit that family law judges are outside of my area of expertise, cause that whole area of law is filled with nonsense in my opinion. But when it comes to civil and criminal matters, you know what you are getting and you should know how to effectively litigate. Judges are simply roadblocks to an eventual outcome, if you fail then you should be looking harder at the merits of your case.

Ben is not brown nosing. He is correct. People need to stop whining. We have many good judges.

Even though I am not defending Nevada judges, either as a group nor defending individual judges, and concede we have our share of not very good ones, 2:03 emphasizes a couple critical points we must bear in mind.

1. Venting about judges is all well and good, but advocating for the elimination of judicial elections demonstrates a real lack of practical insight, and no real understanding of the process and its history.

Over the last three decades, on no fewer than three occasions there has been a Nevada ballot question geared toward eliminating contested judicial elections.

Those ballot questions failed convincingly. It may seem counterintuitive, but people want to retain the right to vote for positions they know nothing about and have zero interest in.

So, yes, as 2:03 points out, if a judge is intolerably bad, the only real practical way to be proactive is to run against them, or support someone else who is willing to do so.

2. 2:03 also alludes to another serious problem. Often, when attorneys insist a judge is really bad, that may not necessarily be the case. It may simply be an isolated, anecdotal situation wherein the judge did not rule in the attorney's favor, and the attorney may be so invested in the case in terms of sweat equity that the attorney can not really think objectively. In other words, whenever an attorney bitches about a judge's ruling, that of course does not, in and of itself, establish that the judge really blew the call.

Many attorneys simply believe they are always right, and that any judge who disagrees is clueless, totally unprepared, misguided, or, worse yet, in the tank for the opposing side

So to post about how an attorney lost a motion because the horrible judge totally ignored the facts and the law(without accurately telling us what the facts and law were)is a common, but totally unhelpful, situation.

As for 2:25's criticism that 2:03, by using his actual name, is attempting to suck up to specific judges, the content of his post does not suggest that is the case. He simply, in a most general sense,pointed out that the elimination of judicial elections is not practical, and he refuses to have the knee-jerk reaction that judges are horrible simply because they may not ruled in his favor 100% of the time.

Again, I don't want to come across as defending judges, but I share 2:03's annoyance with this constant form of "logic" we are treated to, when an attorney wants to turn the judicial selection system upside down because the attorney lost a motion.

2:03 did not single out any individual judges for praise, but just offered general observations.

3:14 here. As for 3:37 who is also 12:49, you sarcastically thank me for assuming all kids of things about you.

However, my comments were specifically addressed to 2:25, and 2:25 specifically states "I am not 12:49."

So, perhaps you need to pay a little closer attention when you post. If I am to be chastized for assuming things about 12:49, that must mean that 12:49 and 2:25 are one and the same(despite your denial of such),as my comments were only made to 2:25.

Now that I have caused all this confusion…

4:08–why are you still arguing to get rid of judicial elections since it was explained in detail they are clearly here to stay(multiple failed ballot questions designed to eliminate contested judicial elections), and you acknowledged, or at least claimed, that you were well aware of the history involved?

So, if advocacy groups that raised, and spent, hundreds of thousands of dollars, to eliminate contested judicial elections, failed to change the system at all, you may wish to re-think your strategy.

And your strategy seems to be that even though others have spent that kind of money and commitment and ultimately failed, that you can change the entire judicial election system just by posting your anonymous opinion on some blog?

So, perhaps you are the one being a smarty pants.

Actully, all of you, who weighed in on this thread, are, to varying degrees, smarty pants know-it-alls

Hypocritical? They are elected to make hard decisions. If the decisions are easy, the cases settle. Their sole purpose is to make the hard decisions. Hypocritical was not the right word.