The new gambling court is getting national attention. [KTNV]
A legislative committee is hearing about the Supreme Court’s budget today. [TNI]
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow to civil forfeiture by finding the 8th Amendment’s ban on excessive fines to apply to states. [SCOTUSblog]
From a press release: Interviews for individuals seeking to fill judicial openings in Departments 6, 9, and G of the Eighth Judicial District Court have been scheduled for March 11-13, 2019 at the Nevada Supreme Court Courtroom in Las Vegas. Interviews will be webcast and can be viewed at https://nvcourts.gov/supreme The opening selection meeting of Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. on March 11 with the first public comment period shortly thereafter. The first interview is scheduled for 9 a.m. and interviews are scheduled for 30 minutes with breaks throughout the day. The interview schedule has been randomly assigned for each applicant. A complete meeting agenda can be found at http://nvcourts.link/NVJudicialSelection. Comments can be made at the Las Vegas courtroom. Letters from the public are also accepted and considered by the Commission provided they are signed. The final public comment period is at 1:30 p.m. on March 13. Selection of nominations for each judicial opening will be announced at the end of each day of interviews. The names of nominees will then be forwarded to Governor Steve Sisolak.
The west side is very slippery. My commute is less than 10 minutes to Town Center & Charleston. I saw 3 accidents on my way to work. Be safe out there.
Guest
Anonymous
February 21, 2019 5:20 pm
Most of the roads east side, Russell, to downtown are ok. The only real problem is Road Fools galore……
Guest
Anonymous
February 21, 2019 5:27 pm
Hit by a snow plow? Call now!
Guest
Anonymous
February 21, 2019 5:42 pm
I am dealing with loco down at the RJC.
Guest
Anonymous
February 21, 2019 9:26 pm
I may be hard to please, but I am not impressed with the applicants for the two RJC seats or the Family Court seat.
Often, the best and most successful attorneys either view a judgeship as a pay cut and/or they deplore the politics involved in being elected or appointed(and appointments involve politics as well, although somewhat different politics than an election).
Also, such attorneys are often turned off by the undignified(read:scummy) aspects of raising thousands and thousands of dollars from lawyers whose cases he/she will preside over if elected or appointed.
Additionally, both processes are really time consuming. Elections are more time-consuming and take months, but the application process for an appointment is also time-consuming and difficult.
And there is also the issue that some lawyers don't like putting themselves out there for what they perceive will be very public rejection.
So, there are those reasons and others, why good lawyers don't throw their hat in the ring.
Now, anyone who tosses out two or three names of worthy applicants for each position is, respectfully, kind of missing the point. Each positon may have two or three worthy applicants, but the remainder of the applicants for each position range from horrific to borderline mediocre at best.
And, no, it has not always been that way. Some years back you would have six or eight really solid applicants for each position. But now you are lucky if there are two decent applicants per positon.
Historically, there would be several solid applicants, sprinkled in with a few questionable choices, and the least impressive applicant would be appointed to the position.
Think Lee Gates.
Think Elizabeth Halvorson on the election side. Tons of solid candidates (including 2 future judges) and the nuttiest nutball of them all gets the seat. There are a variety of factors.
–>Michelle Leavitt was (remains) not the most qualified candidate yet she has an advantage that is insurmountable.
–> Jessie Walsh was elected over Betsy Gonzalez. Imagine that– Walsh considered better judge than Gonzalez.
Appointment or election– the fact is that terrible candidates get selected and then retained either way.
Actually, more than three future judges. She got past Villani and Wiese in the primary, and then barely beat Henderson(with a rounded score of 50% for each candidate) in the General Election. All three of those are now judges.
But, it gets worse. The favored candidate was Deputy Attorney General Gerald Gardner, who was highly qualified in all respects.
But the election was set up real well for her. She came into it with some real name recognition and momentum, having nearly beat Judge Gerald Hardcastle two years earlier. Plus, she was the only female in a race of like 8 or 9 candidates, which greatly increased the already substantial pro-female advantage in judicial races. And, I guess most important to note, that a lot of the odd behavior, as well as real challenges caused by her mental and physical condition , was already well-known but the media paid no attention.
I guess the lesson is that we need to pay some level of attention to these races. Not only does our local media tend to largely ignore judicial races, but the large majority of attorneys are uninvolved. Some may help out a favored candidate by making a donation or attending an event or two, but most don't even do that much.
But perhaps of equal, or more, importance to the idea of supporting someone who would be good for the bench, is the concept of sounding the clarion call when someone who is really bad for the bench may be elected or appointed. Often someone unsuitable is elected or appointed, and most lawyers took no action beforehand. Right now, for example, three appointments are underway, and very few lawyers have written letters to the Commission to either support a good applicant, or to warm the Commission of an unsuitable or dishonorable or unethical applicant.
Agree with 11:08 that far more attorneys should write the Commission when they perceive an applicant as totally unsuitable for the bench.
But with this important qualifier. Simply because we resented someone who was opposing counsel on a case, and they were a difficult jerk to work with, and, in our anger and frustration, we viewed them as "unethical", probably does not rise to the level, in and of itself, where someone should send a negative missive to the Judicial Selection Commission.
But if we are aware of truly disturbing and/or highly unethical behavior, that somehow escaped the full and merited attention of the State Bar, then that would merit warning the Commission about such applicant.
The west side is very slippery. My commute is less than 10 minutes to Town Center & Charleston. I saw 3 accidents on my way to work. Be safe out there.
Most of the roads east side, Russell, to downtown are ok. The only real problem is Road Fools galore……
Hit by a snow plow? Call now!
I am dealing with loco down at the RJC.
I may be hard to please, but I am not impressed with the applicants for the two RJC seats or the Family Court seat.
Often, the best and most successful attorneys either view a judgeship as a pay cut and/or they deplore the politics involved in being elected or appointed(and appointments involve politics as well, although somewhat different politics than an election).
Also, such attorneys are often turned off by the undignified(read:scummy) aspects of raising thousands and thousands of dollars from lawyers whose cases he/she will preside over if elected or appointed.
Additionally, both processes are really time consuming. Elections are more time-consuming and take months, but the application process for an appointment is also time-consuming and difficult.
And there is also the issue that some lawyers don't like putting themselves out there for what they perceive will be very public rejection.
So, there are those reasons and others, why good lawyers don't throw their hat in the ring.
Now, anyone who tosses out two or three names of worthy applicants for each position is, respectfully, kind of missing the point. Each positon may have two or three worthy applicants, but the remainder of the applicants for each position range from horrific to borderline mediocre at best.
And, no, it has not always been that way. Some years back you would have six or eight really solid applicants for each position. But now you are lucky if there are two decent applicants per positon.
Historically, there would be several solid applicants, sprinkled in with a few questionable choices, and the least impressive applicant would be appointed to the position.
Think Lee Gates.
Think Elizabeth Halvorson on the election side. Tons of solid candidates (including 2 future judges) and the nuttiest nutball of them all gets the seat. There are a variety of factors.
–>Michelle Leavitt was (remains) not the most qualified candidate yet she has an advantage that is insurmountable.
–> Jessie Walsh was elected over Betsy Gonzalez. Imagine that– Walsh considered better judge than Gonzalez.
Appointment or election– the fact is that terrible candidates get selected and then retained either way.
Actually, more than three future judges. She got past Villani and Wiese in the primary, and then barely beat Henderson(with a rounded score of 50% for each candidate) in the General Election. All three of those are now judges.
But, it gets worse. The favored candidate was Deputy Attorney General Gerald Gardner, who was highly qualified in all respects.
But the election was set up real well for her. She came into it with some real name recognition and momentum, having nearly beat Judge Gerald Hardcastle two years earlier. Plus, she was the only female in a race of like 8 or 9 candidates, which greatly increased the already substantial pro-female advantage in judicial races. And, I guess most important to note, that a lot of the odd behavior, as well as real challenges caused by her mental and physical condition , was already well-known but the media paid no attention.
I guess the lesson is that we need to pay some level of attention to these races. Not only does our local media tend to largely ignore judicial races, but the large majority of attorneys are uninvolved. Some may help out a favored candidate by making a donation or attending an event or two, but most don't even do that much.
But perhaps of equal, or more, importance to the idea of supporting someone who would be good for the bench, is the concept of sounding the clarion call when someone who is really bad for the bench may be elected or appointed. Often someone unsuitable is elected or appointed, and most lawyers took no action beforehand. Right now, for example, three appointments are underway, and very few lawyers have written letters to the Commission to either support a good applicant, or to warm the Commission of an unsuitable or dishonorable or unethical applicant.
I
Agree with 11:08 that far more attorneys should write the Commission when they perceive an applicant as totally unsuitable for the bench.
But with this important qualifier. Simply because we resented someone who was opposing counsel on a case, and they were a difficult jerk to work with, and, in our anger and frustration, we viewed them as "unethical", probably does not rise to the level, in and of itself, where someone should send a negative missive to the Judicial Selection Commission.
But if we are aware of truly disturbing and/or highly unethical behavior, that somehow escaped the full and merited attention of the State Bar, then that would merit warning the Commission about such applicant.
State bar my ass. They only care about stealing. My fucker got away with so much shit. Now he is a drug dealer.
I cannot stop laughing. Thank you!!!
Speaking of drug dealers, what is going on with the Gamages?
Hold the Pyrex, who is a drug dealer????