On Friday, Judge Miranda Du rejected a church’s request to lift Nevada’s 50-person cap on church services. [Fox5Vegas]
Later that night, the US Supreme Court declined to intervene in challenges by California churches over the COVID-19 measures in place there. [SCOTUSblog]
Nevada’s Commission on Judicial Discipline is unlikely to act on recent complaints unless the subjects are elected. [RJ]
Metro used tear gas and non-lethal rounds to disperse protestors last night. [Las Vegas Sun]
Be prepared for more people at the RJC as more on-site hearings resume. [Eighthjdcourt blog]
Finally, the last three months have been crazy. All of us have been affected and have had to, not necessarily by choice, change how we approach our lives, our jobs, and our society. Now we are being given the opportunity to confront the ever-present, underlying issue of systemic racism in America. As lawyers, we all understand the stakes and the limitations that systems face when trying to change—especially the system that we all made our careers. Don’t let that stop you from doing what you can to put an end to racism. Each one of us can play a part in this change and we hope you will do so.
Paul Dehyle is a joke, that is being nice. He won't discipline candidates unless they are elected?
That is his job. So now elections are unmonitored. It us okay, Paul, you don't discipline sitting judges either.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2020 4:58 pm
The Judicial Canons clearly state, right in the preamble and scope, judicial candidates and judges are bound by the same ethical rules. I don't find particularly helpful Deyhle's statement the Ethics and Finance Commission (or committee) was disbanded because it was being used as a tool by opponents. Great. So no oversight then – just do what you like (unless you get elected). I just love than nearly one million in tax dollars is funding the Commission, which is needed, with zero oversight.
Paul Dehyle needs to be removed from office. You are a danger to the public, Paul Dehyle, You have been for years. You are to protect the public, not the judges and their campaign managers.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2020 5:32 pm
Admittedly, he does like to protect the public from female judges who swear outside of courtroom and who wear attire he finds problematic. I don't care what you wear as a judge as long as the robe is on in the courtroom. I say that having seen several male judges come into the courthouse in their Mom jeans and basketball shorts, at least one who openly smokes in the courthouse and several who swear like truckers.
STepped into chambers with opposing counsel on a fmaily law case a number of years ago. Judge was wearing grey cotton sweats and Tevas under his robe. Hilarious.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2020 5:38 pm
Well, the US Supreme Court declined to take up the challenge to mandatory bar dues (the Jarchow v. Wisconsin Bar case) today despite the Janus ruling regarding union fees on which the Jarchow plaintiffs based their arguments. Lower court challenges to the bar dues were all rejected. Looks like it was a 7-2 denial of cert.
I'm sure people will keep trying, but I think the mandatory bar dues challenges are DOA for the forseeable future.
The Commission is pretty much a joke anyways. They move so slow, there is no relief for the litigants these judges screw over. I'm in the mess every day…doesn't matter to me, but when a judge destroys a litigant's life in a case and then they get disciplined 4 years later, what difference does it make? Would be helpful if the chief judge would take motions to recuse a little more seriously rather than just citing some rote affidavit the offending judge files.
There is no disqualification of judges in this state. Nevada Supreme Court ignores all of the Nevada judicial canons. People need to wake the frig up as to who is on the bench.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2020 6:24 pm
If people wish to criticize the Judicial Discipline Commission based on how they proceed, or don't proceed, against sitting judges concerning clear violations, I get it and understand the critiques included in this blog.
But, I for one, don't want them absorbed referring a myriad of election disputes between candidates who are not judges, and may never be.
There was the Standing Committee On Judicial Ethics and Election Practices, which dealt with such matters, but was disbanded in 2011.
If there is an appetite to again fund that committee, then great.
But to harshly criticize the Commission for not be sufficiently diligent in pursuing culpable judges, but then to call them worthless for not dealing with all these election gripes(many of which do not feature a sitting judge at that time)will require a humongous increase in their funding.
After all, for every legitimate actionable complaint being pursued against a sitting judge, there will be 12 complaints from disgruntled candidates.
And a lot of these election complaints are petty and not valid, at least no longer valid under existing rules(for example, candidates can now "slate" together, etc.–yet that is at the center of many of these complaints).
How many judges are there who are subject to their jurisdiction? Maybe 200? (if you count the seniors but not the short trial judges). I'm guessing a bit there, but the number can't be all that high, and they can't possibly have all that many open cases pending once you weed out all of the obviously frivolous stuff. Seems to me they should have plenty of time to do their jobs re candidates for judicial office.
WHITE V REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA envicerates any effort to discipline a candidate for recommendations of a private club, even if the election practices unit was still in existence.
11:24–I also don't think they should referee all these election gripes.
But not all these election gripes are petty. So, perhaps that disbanded judicial ethics and election practices committee should be revamped and sufficiently funded, if there is a real need or appetite for that.
What good are the Canons if they are not enforced? Think of this: 3 people are up for one dept, all realatively close in qualifications One candidate uses a political party endorsement that clearly is in violation. The other two do not. The "bad" candidate get through the primary as the top vote. The other two finish 2nd and 3rd by a narrow margin. In these partisan times, a political endorsement could clearly sway voters in a race they know nothing else about. The entire outcome of the race would be in question and we have no mechanism to address this? If "bad" candidate wins he may get a "slap" say he/she is sorry and no one will remember it 6 years from now.
This attorney/musician is telling you good people to vote the incumbents out. There is no accountability or oversight in these elections and with these judges. They are worse than you think.
3:55-I hear you, but people who are determined to exploit party affiliation in non-partisan races, have always found ways to do so and still not be in contravention of the rules.
Classic example which has occurred consistently over the last couple decades, with zero accountability: candidates, while aware they would be in violation if they claim they are supported by the county or state Republican or Democratic party, avoid the issue with endorsements from private groups such as "Democratic Women's Club" or
"Republican Lawyers Affiliation," etc.
It just goes to prove the old maxim "there is no such thing as a non-partisan race."
So, perhaps the rules need to be revamped to include those type of private endorsements that include a political party in their title.
Granted, there are some non-partisan races where it may not seem too harmful if they make a point of their political affiliation.
But as 3:55 suggests, judicial races are NOT such a race, and there is real harm by taking such actions, including an unfair advantage in the election, as well as it doing violence to the judicial branch intended to be truly independent and insulated form overt political influences.
3:55 and 5:26, refreshing that you guys are having a discussion of real value and merit(often not the case on this blog).
And yes, often in a race of judicial candidates(and even more so where it is an open seat with no incumbent),the public knows next to nothing about the candidates, and thus an improper reference to party affiliation can make the difference.
@5:26 there is a difference between a partisan group putting out a slate card of candidates they support versus candidates putting out mailers or other adverts stating partisan group/club support. Partisan groups put out slate cards all the time. No issue. When a judicial candidate, however, pays to put out an advert stating s/he is endorsed by a partisan group is a violation (according to the Canons, anyway). Paul Deyhle is garbage and the Governor really should take a look at how the agency being run by Dehyle is spending tax payer money. We need a commission but one that follows the law and does its job.
Once upon a time there was female Los Angeles Superior Court judge (Central division as I recall) who berated male attorneys, threatened to castrate them with her gun, which she brandished in Court. Sadly it took CA judicial folks a couple of years to remove her.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2020 8:52 pm
Paul Dehyle is Michael Knight, cape crusader. I mean robe crusader.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2020 9:02 pm
Some good news is the food truck serving mexican food was back in front of the RJC.
Guest
Anonymous
June 1, 2020 10:53 pm
Who made the judges ethics commission's rogue decision to do nothing with judicial candidates, Sisolak or Dehyle? Nevada taxpayers want their money back for the agency disbandment.
A vote from your own firm gets you one point, and from outside gets you three points. I have heard you only have to get three points to make the list (and pay their fee for your plaque of course.) What an honor.
We all know the answer is #2. Some poor cop was shot in the back of the head last night. Terrible. One blessing of Covid is that maybe the EJDC will end most hearings for civil matters, so I can avoid ugly, crime-ridden, and over-priced downtown forever.
Paul Dehyle is a joke, that is being nice. He won't discipline candidates unless they are elected?
That is his job. So now elections are unmonitored. It us okay, Paul, you don't discipline sitting judges either.
The Judicial Canons clearly state, right in the preamble and scope, judicial candidates and judges are bound by the same ethical rules. I don't find particularly helpful Deyhle's statement the Ethics and Finance Commission (or committee) was disbanded because it was being used as a tool by opponents. Great. So no oversight then – just do what you like (unless you get elected). I just love than nearly one million in tax dollars is funding the Commission, which is needed, with zero oversight.
Paul Dehyle needs to be removed from office. You are a danger to the public, Paul Dehyle, You have been for years. You are to protect the public, not the judges and their campaign managers.
Admittedly, he does like to protect the public from female judges who swear outside of courtroom and who wear attire he finds problematic. I don't care what you wear as a judge as long as the robe is on in the courtroom. I say that having seen several male judges come into the courthouse in their Mom jeans and basketball shorts, at least one who openly smokes in the courthouse and several who swear like truckers.
STepped into chambers with opposing counsel on a fmaily law case a number of years ago. Judge was wearing grey cotton sweats and Tevas under his robe. Hilarious.
Well, the US Supreme Court declined to take up the challenge to mandatory bar dues (the Jarchow v. Wisconsin Bar case) today despite the Janus ruling regarding union fees on which the Jarchow plaintiffs based their arguments. Lower court challenges to the bar dues were all rejected. Looks like it was a 7-2 denial of cert.
I'm sure people will keep trying, but I think the mandatory bar dues challenges are DOA for the forseeable future.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/justices-will-not-review-challenge-to-mandatory-bar-dues/
That's unfortunate.
The Commission is pretty much a joke anyways. They move so slow, there is no relief for the litigants these judges screw over. I'm in the mess every day…doesn't matter to me, but when a judge destroys a litigant's life in a case and then they get disciplined 4 years later, what difference does it make? Would be helpful if the chief judge would take motions to recuse a little more seriously rather than just citing some rote affidavit the offending judge files.
There is no disqualification of judges in this state. Nevada Supreme Court ignores all of the Nevada judicial canons. People need to wake the frig up as to who is on the bench.
If people wish to criticize the Judicial Discipline Commission based on how they proceed, or don't proceed, against sitting judges concerning clear violations, I get it and understand the critiques included in this blog.
But, I for one, don't want them absorbed referring a myriad of election disputes between candidates who are not judges, and may never be.
There was the Standing Committee On Judicial Ethics and Election Practices, which dealt with such matters, but was disbanded in 2011.
If there is an appetite to again fund that committee, then great.
But to harshly criticize the Commission for not be sufficiently diligent in pursuing culpable judges, but then to call them worthless for not dealing with all these election gripes(many of which do not feature a sitting judge at that time)will require a humongous increase in their funding.
After all, for every legitimate actionable complaint being pursued against a sitting judge, there will be 12 complaints from disgruntled candidates.
And a lot of these election complaints are petty and not valid, at least no longer valid under existing rules(for example, candidates can now "slate" together, etc.–yet that is at the center of many of these complaints).
How many judges are there who are subject to their jurisdiction? Maybe 200? (if you count the seniors but not the short trial judges). I'm guessing a bit there, but the number can't be all that high, and they can't possibly have all that many open cases pending once you weed out all of the obviously frivolous stuff. Seems to me they should have plenty of time to do their jobs re candidates for judicial office.
WHITE V REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA envicerates any effort to discipline a candidate for recommendations of a private club, even if the election practices unit was still in existence.
This isn't Minnesota.
11:24–I also don't think they should referee all these election gripes.
But not all these election gripes are petty. So, perhaps that disbanded judicial ethics and election practices committee should be revamped and sufficiently funded, if there is a real need or appetite for that.
What good are the Canons if they are not enforced? Think of this: 3 people are up for one dept, all realatively close in qualifications One candidate uses a political party endorsement that clearly is in violation. The other two do not. The "bad" candidate get through the primary as the top vote. The other two finish 2nd and 3rd by a narrow margin. In these partisan times, a political endorsement could clearly sway voters in a race they know nothing else about. The entire outcome of the race would be in question and we have no mechanism to address this? If "bad" candidate wins he may get a "slap" say he/she is sorry and no one will remember it 6 years from now.
This attorney/musician is telling you good people to vote the incumbents out. There is no accountability or oversight in these elections and with these judges. They are worse than you think.
3:55-I hear you, but people who are determined to exploit party affiliation in non-partisan races, have always found ways to do so and still not be in contravention of the rules.
Classic example which has occurred consistently over the last couple decades, with zero accountability: candidates, while aware they would be in violation if they claim they are supported by the county or state Republican or Democratic party, avoid the issue with endorsements from private groups such as "Democratic Women's Club" or
"Republican Lawyers Affiliation," etc.
It just goes to prove the old maxim "there is no such thing as a non-partisan race."
So, perhaps the rules need to be revamped to include those type of private endorsements that include a political party in their title.
Granted, there are some non-partisan races where it may not seem too harmful if they make a point of their political affiliation.
But as 3:55 suggests, judicial races are NOT such a race, and there is real harm by taking such actions, including an unfair advantage in the election, as well as it doing violence to the judicial branch intended to be truly independent and insulated form overt political influences.
3:55 and 5:26, refreshing that you guys are having a discussion of real value and merit(often not the case on this blog).
And yes, often in a race of judicial candidates(and even more so where it is an open seat with no incumbent),the public knows next to nothing about the candidates, and thus an improper reference to party affiliation can make the difference.
@5:26 there is a difference between a partisan group putting out a slate card of candidates they support versus candidates putting out mailers or other adverts stating partisan group/club support. Partisan groups put out slate cards all the time. No issue. When a judicial candidate, however, pays to put out an advert stating s/he is endorsed by a partisan group is a violation (according to the Canons, anyway). Paul Deyhle is garbage and the Governor really should take a look at how the agency being run by Dehyle is spending tax payer money. We need a commission but one that follows the law and does its job.
Amen, 907
Once upon a time there was female Los Angeles Superior Court judge (Central division as I recall) who berated male attorneys, threatened to castrate them with her gun, which she brandished in Court. Sadly it took CA judicial folks a couple of years to remove her.
Paul Dehyle is Michael Knight, cape crusader. I mean robe crusader.
Some good news is the food truck serving mexican food was back in front of the RJC.
Who made the judges ethics commission's rogue decision to do nothing with judicial candidates, Sisolak or Dehyle? Nevada taxpayers want their money back for the agency disbandment.
https://www.nevadabusiness.com/2020/06/legal-elite-2020-the-silver-states-top-attorneys/
I want a recount? Where is Naqvhi?
These lists are the biggest joke going.
A vote from your own firm gets you one point, and from outside gets you three points. I have heard you only have to get three points to make the list (and pay their fee for your plaque of course.) What an honor.
Hence, so many Akerman winners are on there.
Friendly reminder that there are only four highways out of town, and each only has two lanes.
The 15 Fwy south has three lanes all the way to the California line yo
Crim law final exam question:
In your daily life, which is more of a problem:
1. Police Brutality, or
2. Black criminality
Discuss.
How about you discuss? Why don't you share your own thoughts instead of baiting others into sharing theirs?
We all know the answer is #2. Some poor cop was shot in the back of the head last night. Terrible. One blessing of Covid is that maybe the EJDC will end most hearings for civil matters, so I can avoid ugly, crime-ridden, and over-priced downtown forever.
Of course the guy shooting into the Federal Building was white.
So was the guy who blew up a federal building in April 1994 . . . .