- Quickdraw McLaw
- 16 Comments
- 393 Views
- Anyone want to summarize the ADKT 0608 hearing yesterday? Our Nevada Judges has a clip of Rob Bare’s comments that are worth watching.
- Justice of the Peace Joe Bonaventure upholds his recusal in the Ruggs case. [RJ]
- Vanity plates rejected by the State of Nevada. [KTNV]
- Plans for guitar shaped tower to replace Mirage volcano approved. [News3LV]
Anyone have the clip of Hardesty's comments to the court? I missed that part and curious to see it based on the comments yesterday
No clip, but he was there to give comments on the ADKT for a pilot program to create specialized water law judges for district courts.
Thoughts on the bill allowing Clark County to abolish the PA's office?
I support guitar shaped everything.
Certainly the controversy with the Public Administrator's Office is the impetus to abolish it. This is really just a power grab by the County. Why shouldn't we elect these offices. Reminds me of the Constable's Office being abolished. The net result is that is does away with the electorate having any say. The County Commission will then appoint a political and diverse appointee. There will be no remedy for the taxpayers if the appointee is a bad choice. The electorate will lose their ability to vote out the awful administrators like Rob Telles or Bonavetura who was Constable.
Everyone “knew” her
@12:44 you almost sound coherent and then you throw in the “diverse” comment and now you’re just racist. Thanks for contributing nothing to the discourse.
12:44,
Let's get serious here. The public doesn't give a damn about the PA office. There is zero reason it should be an elected office. In LA County, it's a division of the Treasury. In Maricopa County, it's an appointed position under the Assistant City Manager. Just hire someone competent.
1:25 is racist. Why do such bigots get to post freely? I am offended. Delete
2:36 PM–Election v. Appointment of offices. I gather you have not seen the appointments made by the County Commission which are more about checking a box of DEI rather than qualifications. This is the problem with appointment of all offices. Pure politics to appease pressure groups. Don't know how this a racism. In some jurisdictions the District Attorneys or Prosecutors are appointed. This does not mean we should do that in Nevada.
@3:58 as opposed to elections that gave us Robert Telles and Earl Mitchell?
1:29 believes these offices should be filled by appointment, rather than election, because the public knows nothing about these offices, and cares even less.
And 12:44 believes the offices should continue to be filled by election so that the public can vote out rotten apple public officials
Although they reach different conclusions(on election vs appointment) I take issue with the reasoning of both.
Although I agree with 1:29 that the public knows very little, and cares even less, about the operations of these offices, that, by itself, is not a sufficient rationale to shift these offices from election to appointment. Every so often, people argue that the public knows very little about this or that office, and therefore it should become appointed rather than elected. But, the hard truth is, most of the public knows very little about the operations and functions of most of the offices they vote for, so where do we draw the line? If the key component(of election vs appointment) were based on the public's general knowledge and interest level of these various offices and their operations, there would be very few offices remaining that we could vote for.
And 12:44's logic is even more troubling, even though 12:44 argues the opposite of 1:29-that being that we need to continue with popular elections for obscure offices people don't tend to know or care about. 12:44 argues that the only effective way to remove bad office holders is if the public retains the right to vote them out of office. But then to support this premise 12:44 offers the names of two public officials who were effectively removed from office via arrest, long before the public had a crack at voting whether to re-elect them or not.
If 3:27 p.m. would like to host a discussion, please reach out.
3:27, I had the same reaction as you, but it did not merit the detail or analysis you offered. After all, I think it was obvious to most readers that the one poster argued for continued elections by citing two public officials–both of whom, as you point out, met their political demise due to serious prosecutions and arrests, not by eventually being voted out of office.
I wonder if DMV has given any thought as to whether Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 2294, 204 L. Ed. 2d 714 (2019), alters the analysis any for having a vanity plate that is deemed to be "immoral or scandalous".
Great to connect