It’s an election year and that means there are some judicial openings. The RJ says that most of the statewide judges and Clark County judges intend to try and retain their positions. Among those up for reelection are Justice Hardesty, the new appeals court judges, their district court replacements, and some justice court positions. There is only a small window of time to get your name on the ballot. If you want more information, go here and get your application done by January 15.
Why is Justice Hardesty up for reelection? Don't the 6th and 7th positions on the Nevada Supreme Court disappear now under NRS 2.010 since the appellate court has been approved? Seems like the best interpretation would be that the 6th and 7th positions should have disappeared immediately. At most, the seats of the two justices whose terms are up next should disappear when their terms are up.
Guest
anonymous
January 4, 2016 5:09 pm
Remarkably, the legislature changed the law during the last session so that the two seats will remain.
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2016 6:30 pm
On day 199 of the 120-day legislative session, the primary appropriations bill (SB 514) was finally introduced. Buried in section 86 was language that said this: "Section 9 of Chapter 433, Statutes of Nevada 1997, at page 1532, is hereby repealed." No public discussion on this. No identification of how this got inserted, or at who's behest. Not even a blip describing what, exactly, was being removed, other than that citation.
Democracy at its best. The needs of the few at the expense of the many. I am sure that when whoever took care of this needs a favor in return the Nevada Supreme Court will return the favor.
Guest
Jordan Ross, Principal, Ross Legal Search
January 4, 2016 7:04 pm
While I'm a Libertarian Republican and I usually feel that much of what is spent by the public sector is a waste, I'm going to take a different tack on this issue. From a relative perspective the salaries and attendant expense of two employees don't amount to much in the context of the total state budget.
I feel there are two good reasons for keeping a seven justice court. 1) It allows for a better distribution of work and, 2) far more importantly it spreads out the supreme judicial power of the state a little more. That's simply too much power to vest in the hands of just five people. Especially since most cases are heard by a panel of the court. If we had only five justices would that mean we'd see two justice panels hearing cases? Not healthy for a democratic republic.
Perhaps. But the reason why the court was expanded to seven (and the reason why they divided into panels) was under the condition that if an Intermediate Appellate Ct was ever approved, the Supreme Court would be reduced in size because the IAC would be taking some of the workload. But in the grand design thought up by the Supremes, we don't have an Intermediate anything since everything goes to the Supremes first. We have the Supreme Court North Panel, South Panel, en banc, and Shitwork panel. And the good ol' Shitwork panel took 500 cases in 2015 and issued just 4 published opinions. Their work didn't seem to help the Supremes issue more published opinions, either, since the Supremes issued 89 – down from 109 the year before, but more in line with 2012-2013. I supported the creation of the IAC. But this is bullshit. But hey, at least we can cite their unpublished opinions now, right?
So, congratulations. The Supremes get to do less work, didn't give up the two justices, and will be moving into a damned palace.
January 4, 2016 at 11:39 AM – While I feel the new courthouse does seem to make sense financially, I will agree with you about the lack of published opinions, which I have commented on for several years. No argument there. I confess I'm puzzled why so few are issued.
It makes sense in that it saves the state money from its previous rent. It makes no sense given what the Supremes actually need to conduct business. The savings could have been considerably more if they hadn't felt the need to show off the size of their collective… robes. Just because you spent $100 when you might have spent $150 doesn't make you $50 richer. It makes you poorer by $100.
Can't somebody please find Bruce a harmless do nothing job with a decent salary? Eventually he's going to get elected to some bench simply because voters have seen his name forever and then will come plagues, wars, famine, earthquakes, and a talking goat and there you have it we're fucked.
It's reasonable for attorneys to assume that perennial judicial candidates(some of who may be somewhat eccentric, as well as not being very good attorneys)would be disastrous as judges, the anecdotal evidence does not necessary establish this as fact.
We assume that those appointed to a judgeship, or those elected with a great deal of Bar support, make such great judges, and that lone wolf perennial candidates, who get elected through sheer repeated re-enforcement of their name, and with little or no Bar support, must, by necessity, be dreadful judges. But the quality between these two types of people isn't always as great as we think. One must look no further than these postings for proof of this. A perennial candidate is being ridiculed, but there are a roughly equal number of posts bemoaning the performance of a recently appointed, heavily vetted, judge.
Holper is functionally retarded, the multiple police reports he has generated should come back to bite him in the ass. E. Johnson is an awesome judge, as a criminal defense attorney I have been surprised at how fair and well thought out his rulings are. His wife on the other hand leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know how Johnson The Male is in the civil world, but he's a solid crime judge.
If you look up perennial candidate in the dictionary, you will see a picture of Bruce Gale. Of course, the average perennial candidate — you know who they are — will take offensive to Bruce being lumped in with them.
Who would you all vote for(and assume you are required to cast a vote, and cannot skip the race)if there is a District Court race and the five candidates on the Primary Election Ballot are Bruce Gale, Chad Golightly, Jacob Hafter, Scott Holper, and Ken Pollock?
Consistent with the theory that people don't complain as much about a lack of quality if there is a surplus of quantity, the list(at 6:32)is now expanded to a full ten names to choose from. Assume the additional five candidates are Keith Gregory, Diana Hampton, Tony Liker, Bob Lueck, and the guy who ran for D.A against Wolfson.
4:05, can you tell me one perennial candidate that got elected, and turned out to be a good judge? I can't think of a one, and the opposite has MANY examples.
When is the deadline to file? Holper vs. Johnson, we need all the help we can get. This race will be worse than Marquis and Scalia.
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2016 10:38 pm
who wants to start a tally of which candidates belong to Dave Thomas, Eglet, etc? I already that Harmony Letizia, a candidate for justice court 3, has a picture at Eglet's Christmas party.
who wants to talk about the odds that the new Chief Justice of Nevada Supreme Court, Parraguirre and his predecessor, Hardesty, are both up for reelection this year?
I know Parraguirre's wife got picked up for a DUI in October, didn't see it on the JC crim website. Think they're dragging their feet until after filing?
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2016 11:13 pm
Article 6, section 3 of the Nevada Constitution provides that the Chief Justice is the justice with the "shortest term" left. If two justices are up at the same time, then the Chief Justice is determined "by lot."
Guest
Anonymous
January 5, 2016 1:21 am
What's the problem with Eric Johnson? I've had good results from him. Won some, lost some, but at least his decisions have been rational and based in law.
Why is Justice Hardesty up for reelection? Don't the 6th and 7th positions on the Nevada Supreme Court disappear now under NRS 2.010 since the appellate court has been approved? Seems like the best interpretation would be that the 6th and 7th positions should have disappeared immediately. At most, the seats of the two justices whose terms are up next should disappear when their terms are up.
Remarkably, the legislature changed the law during the last session so that the two seats will remain.
On day 199 of the 120-day legislative session, the primary appropriations bill (SB 514) was finally introduced. Buried in section 86 was language that said this: "Section 9 of Chapter 433, Statutes of Nevada 1997, at page 1532, is hereby repealed." No public discussion on this. No identification of how this got inserted, or at who's behest. Not even a blip describing what, exactly, was being removed, other than that citation.
Democracy at its best. The needs of the few at the expense of the many. I am sure that when whoever took care of this needs a favor in return the Nevada Supreme Court will return the favor.
While I'm a Libertarian Republican and I usually feel that much of what is spent by the public sector is a waste, I'm going to take a different tack on this issue. From a relative perspective the salaries and attendant expense of two employees don't amount to much in the context of the total state budget.
I feel there are two good reasons for keeping a seven justice court. 1) It allows for a better distribution of work and, 2) far more importantly it spreads out the supreme judicial power of the state a little more. That's simply too much power to vest in the hands of just five people. Especially since most cases are heard by a panel of the court. If we had only five justices would that mean we'd see two justice panels hearing cases? Not healthy for a democratic republic.
Perhaps. But the reason why the court was expanded to seven (and the reason why they divided into panels) was under the condition that if an Intermediate Appellate Ct was ever approved, the Supreme Court would be reduced in size because the IAC would be taking some of the workload. But in the grand design thought up by the Supremes, we don't have an Intermediate anything since everything goes to the Supremes first. We have the Supreme Court North Panel, South Panel, en banc, and Shitwork panel. And the good ol' Shitwork panel took 500 cases in 2015 and issued just 4 published opinions. Their work didn't seem to help the Supremes issue more published opinions, either, since the Supremes issued 89 – down from 109 the year before, but more in line with 2012-2013. I supported the creation of the IAC. But this is bullshit. But hey, at least we can cite their unpublished opinions now, right?
So, congratulations. The Supremes get to do less work, didn't give up the two justices, and will be moving into a damned palace.
January 4, 2016 at 11:39 AM – While I feel the new courthouse does seem to make sense financially, I will agree with you about the lack of published opinions, which I have commented on for several years. No argument there. I confess I'm puzzled why so few are issued.
It makes sense in that it saves the state money from its previous rent. It makes no sense given what the Supremes actually need to conduct business. The savings could have been considerably more if they hadn't felt the need to show off the size of their collective… robes. Just because you spent $100 when you might have spent $150 doesn't make you $50 richer. It makes you poorer by $100.
Bruce Gale has already filed to run against Judge Joe Hardy. http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/election/Pages/CandidateFiling.aspx
Well color me *surprised* that Bruce Gale is running for the bench. Again.
Also – Class of 2010 – Time to get in the running for JP! C'mon, you know you want to.
Can't somebody please find Bruce a harmless do nothing job with a decent salary? Eventually he's going to get elected to some bench simply because voters have seen his name forever and then will come plagues, wars, famine, earthquakes, and a talking goat and there you have it we're fucked.
Cannot say I am in love with Hardy, either. Any other candidates file? Would like to see some run against E. Johnson.
Judge E. Johnson has to not be retained. He is a disaster in State Court.
Scott Holper has filed to run against Judge Eric Johnson.
I don't know Bruce Gale, but the fact that he uses an aol.com email account for his practice is enough to disqualify him.
http://www.nvbar.org/lawyer-detail/4971
I have a free email account and website account, does that make me unqualified to run?
Think Scott will have skimpy dressed women to hold up signs for him around town?
It's reasonable for attorneys to assume that perennial judicial candidates(some of who may be somewhat eccentric, as well as not being very good attorneys)would be disastrous as judges, the anecdotal evidence does not necessary establish this as fact.
We assume that those appointed to a judgeship, or those elected with a great deal of Bar support, make such great judges, and that lone wolf perennial candidates, who get elected through sheer repeated re-enforcement of their name, and with little or no Bar support, must, by necessity, be dreadful judges. But the quality between these two types of people isn't always as great as we think. One must look no further than these postings for proof of this. A perennial candidate is being ridiculed, but there are a roughly equal number of posts bemoaning the performance of a recently appointed, heavily vetted, judge.
Holper is functionally retarded, the multiple police reports he has generated should come back to bite him in the ass. E. Johnson is an awesome judge, as a criminal defense attorney I have been surprised at how fair and well thought out his rulings are. His wife on the other hand leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know how Johnson The Male is in the civil world, but he's a solid crime judge.
If you look up perennial candidate in the dictionary, you will see a picture of Bruce Gale. Of course, the average perennial candidate — you know who they are — will take offensive to Bruce being lumped in with them.
I have not appeared in front of E. Johnson but I've heard multiple complaints from members of the civil bar.
Who would you all vote for(and assume you are required to cast a vote, and cannot skip the race)if there is a District Court race and the five candidates on the Primary Election Ballot are Bruce Gale, Chad Golightly, Jacob Hafter, Scott Holper, and Ken Pollock?
Consistent with the theory that people don't complain as much about a lack of quality if there is a surplus of quantity, the list(at 6:32)is now expanded to a full ten names to choose from. Assume the additional five candidates are Keith Gregory, Diana Hampton, Tony Liker, Bob Lueck, and the guy who ran for D.A against Wolfson.
Of those 10, who would be honored with your vote?
Thank you, Sandoval, your idiocy is showing. Eric Johnson sucks, and so does Joe Hardy.
Golightly, or Gale.
I would take Bob Leuck over E. Johnson.
Why doesn't Bruce disclose his Rule 11 sanctions in his application?
4:05, can you tell me one perennial candidate that got elected, and turned out to be a good judge? I can't think of a one, and the opposite has MANY examples.
Okay, 4:05, you got me. But some have turned out to be adequate or passable.
Scott who?
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/traffic-lawyers-take-personal-feud-court
When is the deadline to file? Holper vs. Johnson, we need all the help we can get. This race will be worse than Marquis and Scalia.
who wants to start a tally of which candidates belong to Dave Thomas, Eglet, etc? I already that Harmony Letizia, a candidate for justice court 3, has a picture at Eglet's Christmas party.
Daddy's money clearly helping out a very mediocre mind. She has no business being a judge.
Thomas' cronies, Bare, Allf, Gonzalez, Scotti, Wiese, please supplement, was William Horne with Thomas?
Ross Miller and Dave Thomas are "friends"
Thomas represented Sturman.
who wants to talk about the odds that the new Chief Justice of Nevada Supreme Court, Parraguirre and his predecessor, Hardesty, are both up for reelection this year?
I know Parraguirre's wife got picked up for a DUI in October, didn't see it on the JC crim website. Think they're dragging their feet until after filing?
Article 6, section 3 of the Nevada Constitution provides that the Chief Justice is the justice with the "shortest term" left. If two justices are up at the same time, then the Chief Justice is determined "by lot."
What's the problem with Eric Johnson? I've had good results from him. Won some, lost some, but at least his decisions have been rational and based in law.
I agree. I think hardy is fair too. What decisions have been so bad? Examples?
I'm a married white male with children. How do I tap into my privilege in order to get me some of that sweet sweet judicial PERS action?
The PERS well will be dry soon, baby.
Good post.