Here are the Sun’s judicial endorsements. (Does anyone else think it is pointless to do an endorsement where you endorse both candidates?) [Las Vegas Sun]
Utility shutoffs are looming for thousands of unemployed in Nevada. [RJ]
At least two Las Vegas Justices of the Peace are opposed to mandatory eviction mediation. [Nevada Current]
For those of you interested in the actions pending before the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, three of the judges that were formally charged have filed responses. [NVCoJD]
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the decade long copyright dispute between Oracle and Google. [CNBC]
In fairness, sometimes I think "man I'd feel much better about what I was doing if I was working to make my community better, and maybe I could do that in the AG's office, or maybe the legislature." But then I realize that even the highest paid government workers make a ton less than me, and I keep doing what I'm doing. So in some cases people end up in the AG's office (or whatever) because that's the only job they can get, but I don't think that's universal. Some people really think working for the government is a great way to serve the community, so they leave a ton on the table to take the job.
Guest
Anonymous
October 7, 2020 5:16 pm
Yes, I tend to think it is pointless to endorse both candidates.
But, more fundamentally, the endorsements from daily newspapers tend to have little or no effect in local judicial races–particularly if it is just the one solitary editorial which jams all the races into the one editorial.
People pay no attention, and are in fact more likely to be influenced by the repeated name-recognition that is imprinted by a judicial candidate having many street signs. No one will ever admit that they vote in part based on street signs, but in judicial races, where voters know little or nothing about the candidates, having hundreds of signs can create some level of name recognition. That helps. But the gender of a judicial candidate can help even more.
That's how people vote in these races. Very few voters do a deep dive to try and determine which candidate is the best, most qualified, most experienced and most honorable attorney.
Much more important than newspaper endorsements are endorsements by major unions, or major political organizations. But those groups don't often get involved in the judicial races.
Rule of thumb: Think of how much you believe the average voter knows of the candidates in an average, obscure down ballot District Court or Family Court race. Presumably, you will have concluded the average voter knows very little about such race or the candidates. Now take that and divide it by four, and that will be a more reliable barometer of how much most voters know or care about these races.
They should care, but they don't. And the media also generally does not care, which is why most judicial candidates should not expect free publicity from the media.
I know I sound jaded, but after watching these races for three decades, I think I am reasonably accurate when I say most voters don't care, and know even less then they care. We lawyers care, but ask you non-lawyer neighbor what they know or think of these races.
It helps if you're a woman with blonde hair. Sad, but true.
Guest
Anonymous
October 7, 2020 5:40 pm
10:16–But we as lawyers can and should do our role, in whatever small way we can, to try and fill the void and try to provide more info. and viewpoints to the public. So, there are things we can do to combat such information void.
Beyond contributing to a favored candidate, look at the possibilities which are open with social media, and the internet in general.
For just one example,some firms, which have many non-attorney online followers, now offer endorsements, along with a discussion of each race and the candidates. And these endorsements and discussions can reach hundreds of people.
This was not available 20 years ago, but it is now. Of course there's a down side–e.g.can a recusal of a judge be triggered if such judge was enthusiastically endorsed by one of the case's attorney on social media or the firm's website? And other concerns can be raised as well.
But despite the down side, which will create some repercussion in given cases, I do notice many law firms are now involved in such approach, and their clients and others have the benefit of reading and considering what is offered. Sometimes this occurs on the firm's website, and sometimes it is on the firm's Facebook or an individual attorney's Facebook.
I rarely encourage the non-lawyers I know to vote one way or another in a race. I am going out of my way to tell everyone I know about Wild Bill, Fred Steese and the string of problems Wild Bill has had in the intervening years. Wild Bill shouldn't be a lawyer, much less on the bench.
I notice that in recent years these endorsement editorials are much shorter and more perfunctory. They used to get into more detail about who they were endorsing, as well as spending some significant time criticizing an opponent for questionable behavior–whether professionla, personal or both.
But I think in recent years a couple candidates have sued, or threatened to sue, a local newspaper over something said about them in the endorsement editorial, or in a news article about the race. Even though such threats to sue are often frivolous and unsustainable, they still require a lot of time, money and aggravation to respond to.
Which all may help explain why they only write like one sentence about the endorsed candidate, and nothing abut the one they decline to endorse.
That is understandable as no need to invite threats of litigation from disgruntled candidates, but it does not serve the public well.
Some things we need to know. For example the Steese matter was not mentioned. In fact, I believe both the judges(who were involved in such matter back when they were prosecutors) are enthusiastically endorsed by the paper.
So, a lot of this is of no real value to the public, as they receive little or no reliable information. 10:16 gets into this matter in some detail and mentions a few key matters that I agree with(although some of the post I am less in agreement with).
So, where this all leaves us is that these endorsements tend to be worthless, tells us nothing we should know, alludes to nothing negative or concerning no matter how relevant.
A typical lame endorsement, which was repeated, with minor variations, for a number of races was: This person is good because they were an Assistant D.A. for almost two years at the start of their legal career, but this other person is also good because they were once an Assistant Attorney General for about 17 months, so looks like the public wins no matter who is elected.
Retired Gen. Michael Hayden (CIA Director under Pres. George W. Bush) endorsed Biden. Just another General with years of military experience saying Trumpfoon is not up to the task. But hey, you cult members with TDSS, can just ignore it and wait for the landslide.
”Trujillo stands out because of her strong commitment to public service [and we applaud her efforts to continue suckling from the government teat]”
Can we please get past this canard that having a government job constitutes "public service"?
10:53 is so right.
In fairness, sometimes I think "man I'd feel much better about what I was doing if I was working to make my community better, and maybe I could do that in the AG's office, or maybe the legislature." But then I realize that even the highest paid government workers make a ton less than me, and I keep doing what I'm doing. So in some cases people end up in the AG's office (or whatever) because that's the only job they can get, but I don't think that's universal. Some people really think working for the government is a great way to serve the community, so they leave a ton on the table to take the job.
Yes, I tend to think it is pointless to endorse both candidates.
But, more fundamentally, the endorsements from daily newspapers tend to have little or no effect in local judicial races–particularly if it is just the one solitary editorial which jams all the races into the one editorial.
People pay no attention, and are in fact more likely to be influenced by the repeated name-recognition that is imprinted by a judicial candidate having many street signs. No one will ever admit that they vote in part based on street signs, but in judicial races, where voters know little or nothing about the candidates, having hundreds of signs can create some level of name recognition. That helps. But the gender of a judicial candidate can help even more.
That's how people vote in these races. Very few voters do a deep dive to try and determine which candidate is the best, most qualified, most experienced and most honorable attorney.
Much more important than newspaper endorsements are endorsements by major unions, or major political organizations. But those groups don't often get involved in the judicial races.
Rule of thumb: Think of how much you believe the average voter knows of the candidates in an average, obscure down ballot District Court or Family Court race. Presumably, you will have concluded the average voter knows very little about such race or the candidates. Now take that and divide it by four, and that will be a more reliable barometer of how much most voters know or care about these races.
They should care, but they don't. And the media also generally does not care, which is why most judicial candidates should not expect free publicity from the media.
I know I sound jaded, but after watching these races for three decades, I think I am reasonably accurate when I say most voters don't care, and know even less then they care. We lawyers care, but ask you non-lawyer neighbor what they know or think of these races.
It helps if you're a woman with blonde hair. Sad, but true.
10:16–But we as lawyers can and should do our role, in whatever small way we can, to try and fill the void and try to provide more info. and viewpoints to the public. So, there are things we can do to combat such information void.
Beyond contributing to a favored candidate, look at the possibilities which are open with social media, and the internet in general.
For just one example,some firms, which have many non-attorney online followers, now offer endorsements, along with a discussion of each race and the candidates. And these endorsements and discussions can reach hundreds of people.
This was not available 20 years ago, but it is now. Of course there's a down side–e.g.can a recusal of a judge be triggered if such judge was enthusiastically endorsed by one of the case's attorney on social media or the firm's website? And other concerns can be raised as well.
But despite the down side, which will create some repercussion in given cases, I do notice many law firms are now involved in such approach, and their clients and others have the benefit of reading and considering what is offered. Sometimes this occurs on the firm's website, and sometimes it is on the firm's Facebook or an individual attorney's Facebook.
For Judge Kephart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RPx6A3gKiA
I rarely encourage the non-lawyers I know to vote one way or another in a race. I am going out of my way to tell everyone I know about Wild Bill, Fred Steese and the string of problems Wild Bill has had in the intervening years. Wild Bill shouldn't be a lawyer, much less on the bench.
I notice that in recent years these endorsement editorials are much shorter and more perfunctory. They used to get into more detail about who they were endorsing, as well as spending some significant time criticizing an opponent for questionable behavior–whether professionla, personal or both.
But I think in recent years a couple candidates have sued, or threatened to sue, a local newspaper over something said about them in the endorsement editorial, or in a news article about the race. Even though such threats to sue are often frivolous and unsustainable, they still require a lot of time, money and aggravation to respond to.
Which all may help explain why they only write like one sentence about the endorsed candidate, and nothing abut the one they decline to endorse.
That is understandable as no need to invite threats of litigation from disgruntled candidates, but it does not serve the public well.
Some things we need to know. For example the Steese matter was not mentioned. In fact, I believe both the judges(who were involved in such matter back when they were prosecutors) are enthusiastically endorsed by the paper.
So, a lot of this is of no real value to the public, as they receive little or no reliable information. 10:16 gets into this matter in some detail and mentions a few key matters that I agree with(although some of the post I am less in agreement with).
So, where this all leaves us is that these endorsements tend to be worthless, tells us nothing we should know, alludes to nothing negative or concerning no matter how relevant.
A typical lame endorsement, which was repeated, with minor variations, for a number of races was: This person is good because they were an Assistant D.A. for almost two years at the start of their legal career, but this other person is also good because they were once an Assistant Attorney General for about 17 months, so looks like the public wins no matter who is elected.
Really?
PLEASE GET THIS GUY OFF THE BENCH.
https://lists.grabien.com/list-joe-biden-flip-flops?sortcolumn=1&sortdirection=asc
Suck it Libs!
The libs don't even care. Way too infected with TDS
Retired Gen. Michael Hayden (CIA Director under Pres. George W. Bush) endorsed Biden. Just another General with years of military experience saying Trumpfoon is not up to the task. But hey, you cult members with TDSS, can just ignore it and wait for the landslide.
Lloyd George has died.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/lloyd-george-longtime-federal-judge-in-las-vegas-dead-at-90-2142169/
Lloyd George is dead, sad. Federal Court is now a scam. They do not make him like him anymore.
Amen. RIP, Judge.