- Quickdraw McLaw
- 41 Comments
- 274 Views
With early voting just two days away, today we turn to the judicial race for Seat “G” on the Nevada Supreme Court: Justice Lidia Stiglich or Matthew Harter. (Here’s an article from the Nevada Current looking at both Supreme Court races.)
This is your opportunity to weigh in and let your fellow lawyers and community members know why they should pick one over the other. Please keep your comments informative and professional. This is not a thread for personal attacks, but rather a chance to explain why someone should be elected.
Who is your choice for this spot on the bench?
Stiglich
On this one, Stiglich
God this pains me. Stiglich is a massive disappointment on the Nevada Supreme Court. She is intelligent, articulate and capable but has turned out to be a mindless toady for Hardesty with zero sense of judicial thought or independence. When interviewed in person, she has zero sense of judicial philosophy or direction. She has entirely squandered her chance in Carson City. She is not an asset on the bench, and I would vote for just about anyone other than her.
Except she is running against Matt Harter. Seriously Matt Harter on the Nevada Supreme Court? Former perennial candidate Matt Harter on the Supreme Court? Undistinguished Matt Harter a member of the Nevada Supreme Court? I would vote for Dennis Hof (God rest his pockmarked soul) for the Supreme Court before Harter. I cannot stomach it.
The Supremes actually require you to show up to work. Minute Orders from home won't suffice. Harter's out.
Just curious…on what do you base this assertion? Can't one read briefs and write draft opinions from home? Asking for a friend.
Sure, but will the NSC allow one to hear argument by way of a closed circuit link to your living room where the robe is from Sears (BK sale) instead of Carson City cleaners?
Based on the money raised and the effort expended, not sure Harter is taking the race particularly seriously. Stiglich has raised three quarters of a million dollars, while Harter reports raising less than $13,000.
However, people often don't pay any real attention to these races, and absurd though it may sound, if you ask an average voter where they heard of a certain judicial candidate, these days most often they did not see an ad or receive a mailer, but instead they reference remembering the candidate's name by seeing it repeatedly on street signs.
And it looks like that is where Harter spent his $13,000., as his signs are on every corner, while I don't yet recall seeing any for Stiglich. In fact, I have not yet seen or heard an ad for Stiglich on the radio or t.v., nor have I received any mailers. And yet the election is almost upon us.
People will not admit they vote based on street signs(as that would look stupid), but most people make no effort to study up on judicial races, and these days, with so many endless cable stations and the like, one must really spend a lot to make much impact with television. So, a lot of the time, on these type of races,initial name recognition can largely be established through massive signage.
So, if Harter truly only had $13,000 at his disposal, I think he was smart to spend it on street signs, as $13,000 would have gotten him very little as to television ads or county-wide campaign mailers.
I'm not suggesting Harter will win, but the race should be a lot closer than the huge fundraising disparity suggests.
I have appeared before Stiglich on four occasions. She is very prepared, her questions have been spot on. I have won and I have lost. The one opinion she authored was extremely well-written and a lot of work was put into it. Definitely Stiglich.
Harter's website reads like a wannabe law journal essay. thats enough for me to vote Stiglich
Wow. It's, ahem, interesting.
Stiglich.
Harter. We need a family court judge on the bench and it is time to put someone that is well respected like Judge Harter on Supreme Court. I regularly appear in front of Judge Harter and he gets my vote.
Harter is the least respected judge on the bench. 10:26 must be a fellow Cooley grad to think that Harter is qualified.
Probably 10:26 is a Boyd '13 Graduate.
10:26 wished he/she could attain the distinguished prestige of being Boyd '13.
I would also like to see a family court judge on the bench but would prefer someone like Duckworth or Hoskin, as opposed to Harter. Poor temperament and inconsistent application of the law.
Agree as to Duckworth. Hoskin, not in this lifetime…
Harter
This race is truly a lesser of evils race. Stiglich had her chance and has really done harm while on the Bench. Harter is an idiot but a benign idiot. Frankly I would prefer someone who does not do harm from the Bench even if they are an idiot.
How has she done harm? This is a genuine question, because I don't really do any appellate work, but there are about 10 appellate lawyers in my firm, and every one likes and is voting for Stiglich.
She is supported by most appellate specialists that I know
Lieutenat Dan wants Stiglich.
She authored an opinion in my favor, so I think she's great!
I like Justice Stiglich. I've done a little appellate work and I've always felt that she paid attention best at oral argument and asked the most intelligent questions. I am voting for her and will encourage others to as well. I do agree that she is too much in Justice Hardesty's orbit, but I think she will grow out of that. Plus, Justice Hardesty is really old. And, everyone seems to be bullied by Justice Hardesty. I'm not sure a replacement would be any different.
Harter is crazy and anti-establishment enough that he is not going to follow Hardesty. You are correct: everyone up there (except Pickering) is bullied by Jungle Jim. But Stiglich supposedly was coming from a background that would offer a perspective and protect viewpoints that Hardesty eschews. And she turned into the biggest toady on the Court. I do appellate work and can tell you that her appearance is quite different than her performance.
Harter for the win.
Even though Harter has almost no campaign money while Stiglich has a very impressive total,9:18 suggests some reasons Harter may perform surprisingly well in this race–including that he seems to, at this point at least, have considerably more community-based name recognition. His signs are all over the place, plus he has run for office quite a few times before finally being elected, which increases the name recognition factor.
Worked for Nick DelVecchio
Harter for sure. Stiglich is the worst
Definitely Harter! He's extremely efficient, consistent, and his Family Law experience would really be beneficial to the Nevada Supreme Court. I also think there is something admirable about Harter not taking "blood money" for that position so a huge entity can't sway a NSCs justice's opinion.
Not taking the money is, on the surface, admirable, but when we peel it away a little one thing comes into focus.
The party, in a judicial election, who insists that he/she will not accept money from attorneys or parties who appear before them, have the luxury of taking such seemingly noble stance because they in fact have little chance of attracting much in the way of substantive, outside contributions.
Stiglich, as the NSC incumbent, has raised hundreds of thousands. Harter, as a Family Court Judge challenging the incumbent, is really not in a position to raise much money.
So, when Harter runs for re-election for his Family Court position, that is the time to test the sincerity and nobility of his pledge to accept no such contributions, because for that election there will be attorneys, who practice before him, tendering contributions.
I've never thought of it that way. I always just kind of admired people who professed they will accept no contributions–or at least no contributions from people who have business before them
But now that 12:16 mentions it, this pledge seems to invariably be offered by some fringe candidate, who has no real chance of being elected and who very few people wish to donate to.
My Daily Affirmation: I will belittle people born with less intellectual abilities than myself, I will churn hours to the point no one can possibly do more than start a case with me, I will spend part of my day developing snide comebacks for my fellow attorneys, and I will aspire to someday work for the OBC so I can do the bidding of the 15-year-old they just hired. For I am ordained by God a Las Vegas lawyer. Onward!
Friday fantastic! Especially the OBC comment. I checked. I think the head Bar Counsel is now the second youngest attorney in the office (other than Matt Carlyon). Can anyone check my math?
I don't know Harter. I looked at his website, which is more awful in form than in content, although underwhelming with the latter. It looks like he has little experience in civil practice outside of family law. Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't the appellate court handle most family law appeals?
I do a fair amount of appellate law and agree with the prior comments that Stiglich is prepared and intelligent. I intend to vote for her.
I've seen these comments that she's a toady for Hardesty – I suspect they are all from the same (one) person who lost a case. I'd also be very interested to hear what "harm" Stiglich has supposedly done. Sounds just like sour grapes to me.
I will tell you that your assumption is incorrect. I am not the one who asserted Stiglich is Hardesty's toady but that person has it correct and knows their appellate work.
Preparation and intelligence should be reflected in decisions which show pragmatic application of the law and judicial independence from influence. I agree that Stiglich appears learned but learned on the front side is only valuable if the correct results are being reached. If you do a fair amount of appellate work, you will be familiar with the number of times that Stiglich has been opposite Hardesty on a Decision or Opinion or has shown an independent thought. I will suggest to you that your search will be fruitless.
There is one decision in particular that sticks out in which both sides moved for Rehearing (well Respondent moved and Appellant filed a Joinder/Non-Opposition) because the Decision (written by Hardesty) had dispositve facts wrong and reached a conclusion that both sides admitted was erroneous. Stiglich voted with Hardesty to deny rehearing even where the Parties agreed that Decision was wrong. That is neither prepared, intelligent or judicial. That is a justice that needs to go. We have won some Decisions/Opinions that she has been on; we have lost some Decisions/ Opinions that she has been on. Not suggesting she needs to go because she does not think that same as we do but because she appears on Decisions to not think on her own much at all.
OK, that is a substantive reply, and I appreciate that. I don't disagree that Stiglich and Hardesty often align. But that doesn't seem disqualifying to me. Is she not thinking at all and just blindly following him? I doubt it, she is too smart for that.
But the question is not whether Stiglich should stay or go, in a vacuum. Granted, I don't do family law, and don't know Harter. But I wasn't impressed with his website. I don't see any reason why he would be a better pick.
Yeah the fact that two justices regularly align does not mean one lacks independence. Marshall and Brennan were almost always on the same side. Same with Thomas and Scalia. I don't think you can point to one in either duo that was blindly following the other.
No on Stiglich.
Thanks to the discussion here, I changed my vote on this race and voted none of the above.
Stiglich is NO