The problem is not with whether the sex or gender of the candidates. The issue is with the disparity of experience and qualifications. Is Nadia Krall more qualified to be judge than Phil Aurbach? Barisch than Coffing? Peterson than Atkin? Craig than Bare? I think Scotti has some vulnerability to his mistake, but is his challenger more qualified? I don't think so. the explanation seems to be that it was the gender of the candidates which was the factor which swayed electors who otherwise had no idea who they were voting for. Look at the challenge of Villani (excellent judge for over a decade, in a close run with Yianna "Anna" C. Albertson-Reizakis) to see how qualifications seem to not matter. I would be happy to have a majority female bench (if not a majority) if they were all the best qualified. I think the loss of dedicated judges, with decades of distinguished civil practice experience is a substantial loss.
Krall and Barisich ran as pure conservatives, all the PD's ran as unabashed liberals. The voters are tired of judges like Villani and candidates like Reynolds hiding behind the notion of being NP. People want to know party affiliation and they vote accordingly. Most of the men didn't understand this, except for Scotti who had baggage, and the results showed.
We live in a polarized world, this goes for Judicial races as well.
While I agree with the sentiment, yes, I do think people do. I had several people tell me just that this election cycle. And if we are being honest, if after educating myself and determining that i cannot make a decision, the female will get my vote as a tie breaker.
2:43 Where's your proof? As a politically interested in attorney, I had no idea about party affiliations (Except for Reynolds, who I agree is likely hiding behind false nonpartisanship). I didn't see any ads for Krall or Barisch. I have heard there were some ads supporting a democratic slate, but I never saw it.
I think judicial partisanship is a slippery slope and one destined to substantially damage the foundation of our democracy.
Krall started the election as a D and switched sides after the primary. I don't think Barisich even voted before the primary. But clearly the voters thought they were the "most qualified"
Scotti is also the guy who got like reversed in a week when he issued a prior restraint, in complete and obvious violation of the First Amendment. Except that it wasn't a prior restraint, it was a restraint after the RJ already published/had information. Scotti is really not that great of a legal mind if he missed 1L Constitutional Law.
I'm actually a huge fan of this ruling. Until today I didn't realize that people could hold jobs as both a DA and a congressional/senate rep, or any government office. I figured, rationally, that it had to be one or the other. Just the appearance of impropriety alone should have made this inappropriate.
Guest
Anonymous
November 10, 2020 11:52 pm
3:33, How was it prior restraint or restraing at all if they had already published? Did he order the RJ to time travel? Did he order that they could not republish or something like that?
Women went 22-3 in contested elections vs. men in judicial races this year.
Men's reaction – Hmm, looks a bit one sided.
Women's reaction – We need to win those last three!
I'm a man. My reaction is "meh." I just can't find it in me to be outraged, or even concerned, about women winning disproportionately.
I am more concerned that the public continues to vote blindly in these elections.
The problem is not with whether the sex or gender of the candidates. The issue is with the disparity of experience and qualifications. Is Nadia Krall more qualified to be judge than Phil Aurbach? Barisch than Coffing? Peterson than Atkin? Craig than Bare? I think Scotti has some vulnerability to his mistake, but is his challenger more qualified? I don't think so. the explanation seems to be that it was the gender of the candidates which was the factor which swayed electors who otherwise had no idea who they were voting for. Look at the challenge of Villani (excellent judge for over a decade, in a close run with Yianna "Anna" C. Albertson-Reizakis) to see how qualifications seem to not matter. I would be happy to have a majority female bench (if not a majority) if they were all the best qualified. I think the loss of dedicated judges, with decades of distinguished civil practice experience is a substantial loss.
Krall and Barisich ran as pure conservatives, all the PD's ran as unabashed liberals. The voters are tired of judges like Villani and candidates like Reynolds hiding behind the notion of being NP. People want to know party affiliation and they vote accordingly. Most of the men didn't understand this, except for Scotti who had baggage, and the results showed.
We live in a polarized world, this goes for Judicial races as well.
Do people really think "I'm voting for this person because she's a woman" or because "he's a man"?" That seems 100% totally insane to me.
2:45
While I agree with the sentiment, yes, I do think people do. I had several people tell me just that this election cycle. And if we are being honest, if after educating myself and determining that i cannot make a decision, the female will get my vote as a tie breaker.
2:43 Where's your proof? As a politically interested in attorney, I had no idea about party affiliations (Except for Reynolds, who I agree is likely hiding behind false nonpartisanship). I didn't see any ads for Krall or Barisch. I have heard there were some ads supporting a democratic slate, but I never saw it.
I think judicial partisanship is a slippery slope and one destined to substantially damage the foundation of our democracy.
Krall started the election as a D and switched sides after the primary. I don't think Barisich even voted before the primary. But clearly the voters thought they were the "most qualified"
@ 2:45 pm. You're surprised? Welcome to the new world order of identity politics. Open your eyes.
From NPRI, Scotti overturns a criminal conviction based on violation of separation of powers: https://www.npri.org/press/melanie-scheible-violated-the-nevada-constitution/
I don't practice criminal law, but that outcome surprises me.
Scotti AGAIN serving the ungrateful and ignorant voters with his superior legal analytical skills and big brass cajones. Bravo sir.
Scotti is also the guy who got like reversed in a week when he issued a prior restraint, in complete and obvious violation of the First Amendment. Except that it wasn't a prior restraint, it was a restraint after the RJ already published/had information. Scotti is really not that great of a legal mind if he missed 1L Constitutional Law.
I'm actually a huge fan of this ruling. Until today I didn't realize that people could hold jobs as both a DA and a congressional/senate rep, or any government office. I figured, rationally, that it had to be one or the other. Just the appearance of impropriety alone should have made this inappropriate.
3:33, How was it prior restraint or restraing at all if they had already published? Did he order the RJ to time travel? Did he order that they could not republish or something like that?
3:33 here, it also prohibited future reporting, after reporting had already been done, and also required that the materials they obtained be destroyed: https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-nevada-supreme-court-vacates-district-judges-ruling-on-autopsy-report/
"For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!"