Key figures of the MS-13 gang were arrested here and in New York this week. [RJ]
Some CCSD trustees have requested a special board meeting to discuss the possible termination of Superintendent Jura. [TNI]
A bill to draw more money in taxes from the mining industry died in the middle of the night. [TNI; Nevada Current]
Speaking of tax money, Allegiant Stadium is scheduled to be completed soon and, at the moment, the Garth Brooks concert is still scheduled for late August. [Vegas Inc.] Uncertainty over that and the 2020 NFL season are looming large over completion of the stadium. [Silver and Black Today]
As you likely saw in the comments yesterday, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of Judge Rena Hughes with regard to an order of public reprimand from the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. Was justice served? Was it timely? Was the dissent right? Is there a better way to address this type of issue in the future?
The Court also threw out a kidnapping conviction against a former Clark County teacher. [RJ]
Seems like Nevada is bound for another shut down. I think gyms and restaurants will be shut down within the next 20 days. Interesting how casinos are still open.
Fear, fear, fear. 99.978% of Clark County residents have survived Covid-19 so far, and you elude to shutting everything down again. Sad state of affairs we are in.
There is a finite capacity of ICU beds in our hospitals. The whole point of shutting things down is to keep the rate of spread under control. While lots of people will survive COVID, plenty (i.e., more than we have ICU beds for) will need ICU care. Letting the disease spread like wildfire will swamp the hospitals, which will then cause all kinds of other collateral harms. People with treatable conditions will die because the hospitals are all full up of COVID patients. People who need emergent care, who otherwise would've lived, will die because emergent care is unavailable.
Gov. Newsome, oops I mean Gov. Sisolack and all of the pandemic panic porn blue state politicos WANT to destroy the USA. The Constitution is no longer relevant. Personal choice, except killing unborn babies and smoking weed, is gone. Everyone / everything is canceled and unforgiven unless the offender is a democrat. Big urban (blue) cities are gone and are becoming wasteland. The economy in Nevada is gone and will have to be rebuilt through hundreds of billions of dollars in bankruptcy. All of you panic democrats pushing for to destroy what we have, let me say 2 things now. #1-Be careful what you ask for. #2-I told you so.
11:40 AM – Can you imagine any scenario in which you, my fellow citizen, would have an obligation to my, and the general public's health? I am not saying/promoting shut everything down and wreck the economy. Easy to take a position on the edge of the bell curve and incite people. But how /bout two sentences of a reasonable suggested alternative course of action?
11:54 AM – Challenge accepted. I wear a mask, wash my hands, social distance, and don't protest, riot or attack police and follow the law. These are reasonable and necessary things to do to put the pandemic porn to bed.
Here's a new challenge. Democrat policies including the newest one to "look the other way at protestors, rioters, and criminals" are destroying big cities. Convince me I'm wrong.
Guessing no one can convince you of anything. And so welcome to the new America. Don't worry I (and millions of others) view Republican policies with every bit the scorn you show towards Democrats. It is this dynmaic that is "destroying big cities" and the rest of America, only a matter of time.
On the one hand, some are bitching about shutting down again (mostly conservatives). I, for one, don't think we need another shutdown. I am left of center, but mindful that Nevada is different than California in that we are mostly a service-based economy and another shutdown will hurt us even much more than we are already hurting.
But on the other hand, a small percentage of conservatives (but an incredibly vocal one) are ADAMANT about not wearing masks or bitching about mask mandates. These individuals are poisoning society by their rhetoric and are likely contributing to the spread of COVID-19 by their actions.
You can't have it both ways, loony tunes!
I, for one, believe that if everyone wears masks pursuant to the recent mandate here, new cases should level out and/or diminish in the next few weeks – as there is about a 2-4 week delay in the spread and incubation period. That, plus social distancing, hand-washing, etc. Basically, just follow everything that's already been ordered, plus the mask mandate, and we'll get over this nasty thing (or at the very worst, keep it at a low level under a vaccine comes out).
Thank goodness for anonymous boards so I can speak my mind on this. I'll keep it brief.
I'm a Republican, and I can't stand this anti-mask rhetoric and bellyaching. No one is saying you have to wear a mask forever and never leave your home again. It's a band-aid – it's a temporary inconvenience as the world gets through a pandemic. This country has been in this situation before, we will again someday, and the VERY LEAST people can do is limit the spread of their mouth goo onto other, nonconsenting people.
I want to go out and play too. I just don't want to die because you cough on me, or have my mom die because she's older and you coughed on me and then later I hugged her. Just for one minute have some empathy toward the fact that hundreds of thousands of other people's family members have died this year, be GRATEFUL it wasn't you or yours that drew that straw, wear a dang face covering so you don't spit on people when you talk, and hope this blows over quick so we can all get back to our normal lives.
I'm happy we're all healthy enough to post on message boards and practice law, and I hope for continued health for all of you and your families and friends as well.
Lifelong Republican here and I really can't understand why so many of my republican friends and family are so selfish and refuse to put a damn mask on.
Solution seems so easy – Go to work and wear a mask; go to the grocery store and wear a mask, go to the gym and wear a mask; don't engage in selfish, non-essential, risky, group activities (protests, family reunions, church, team sports, parties, etc.).
2:25 and 4:37 – agreed wholeheartedly, but do you still support the person who goaded these simpletons into their anti-mask positions for his own personal political gain?
If masks worked, foreign countries that have a mask mandate would not have gotten the virus and/or it would not have spread. We aren't China. Be like Sweden. Be like Georgia. Stay home. But don't tell me what to put on my face blocking AIR. I have 5 different types of face gear and all block air but keep in what I breathe out. https://www.thelocal.se/20200608/why-isnt-sweden-asking-people-to-wear-face-masks
Those foreign countries clearly have as many infections as the USA and their spikes are as high and lasting as long. Stupid masks. Always killing and hurting people.
5:06 – I'm 4:37, if you're asking if I still support Trump, I do. Do I support him on his mask policy and/or coronavirus response? No. Will I vote for him in November? Yes, because I think he's better than the alternative in Biden. I'm becoming more and more independant the longer this nonsense goes on.
America was/is selfish and refuses to stay home as much as we should, so if you're going to be selfish and go out at least be selfless and wear a mask.
If you are not a licensed attorney, a law student, a paralegal, law enforcement personnel, or in a job where you substantively contribute to the practice or enforcement of the law, then PLEASE STAY OFF THIS BLOG and take your tripe elsewhere.
You don't have to worry about any of it, because if you kept more informed, you would realize that your chance to vote these people out has passed.
Rena Hughes lost in the Primary, so that talks care of that. And Justice Pickering, the incumbent NSC with a contested election, won outright in the Primary by taking more than 50% of the vote.
So, you got your wish as to Hughes, but as to your wish as to Pickering? Well, too bad. But she did not author the Hughes opinion(if that opinion is truly your primary motivation for voting out NSC justices)so I guess the Primary worked out okay for you.
Wow, 2:36. You seem a little bitter. If you took your liver pills you would not be so nasty during a pandemic. I feel bad for your husband you have to support.
Working on a writ right now, and I am reading a Nevada Court of Appeals opinion that is almost verbatim as respondent's brief that the ooinion ignores about 15 statutes, US constition, and about 15 to 20 cases that COA This is an en banc decision. A cold case of how fucked up the Nevada Court of Appeals is.
Okay, so no COA's decisions are en banc? I have heard other people say that. Do you make a distinction between 2 and 3 COA's judges signing a deicision?
En banc is a term of art. When a court hears and decides cases in panels (like the SCt does now), then an en banc court is the full court (or less than a full court in the 9th Circuit because it is so big) but en banc just doesn't fit a 3 judge court.
Guest
Anonymous
July 17, 2020 5:24 pm
As far as Judge Hughes, the problems with how she handled the case were issues concerning application of contempt of court procedures, technical notice issues, whether she applied the correct standards for change of custody matters, etc.
Those are matters for courts of review-not ethical panels. There is no serious, intentional ethical infraction at issue.
The commission, and its players, seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of their function.
Now, as a poster indicated yesterday, there may be exceptions, and there may be occasions when legal and procedural errors could have serious ethical overtones.
They pointed out the situation where a JP turned his courtroom into a farce, handcuffed the DPD and held her in contempt for arguing with him, and then proceeded against her clients without her being able to assist them, and then he ordered a law clerk from the PD's office to represent the defendants. When he was sanctioned for those atrocities, I did not complain that the Commission over-stepped its boundaries, as even though those were generally legal and procedural violations, the violations appeared quite intentional and manifested themselves in a real outrageous fashion.
Guest
Anonymous
July 17, 2020 5:31 pm
I heard Chris Gaines will put on a concert if Garth Brooks wusses out.
10:20–yes, she is vindicated but it is too little too late, as she was politically wounded by the ethics decision. There was media coverage of it, it seemingly caused lawyers to rate her down on the survey, and may have helped attract two candidates to her race. And then the pandemic hits, which largely dries up attorney contributions. Attorneys then become very selective about which incumbents they can contribute to, and they probably decide not to contribute much to an incumbent saddled with a recent and serious ethical decision, low ratings, and two viable opponents.
And from appearances, she did not appear to put much of her own money into the race, and may have also seen the hand writing on the wall and decided not to throw good money after bad.
But had the NSC reversal arrived by the end of last year, perhaps her election would have been a lot stronger and far more well supported.
Guest
Anonymous
July 17, 2020 5:35 pm
It would be great if the armchair epidemiologists would stop. People refusing to wear masks is just idiotic. If everyone would wear a mask and stay home and social distance, we could end COVID, but no…this is 'merica and we have to show our a$$es at every possible opportunity. Even when it kills us.
Oh stop it 10:35! 10:27 has stated the obvious. You realize every day, you die a little more? It is inevitable. However, with the hydroxychloroquine plus Z-pak/Zinc option, you can live a fabulous life. MASK FREE btw.
But, but, but Johnny has tee ball practice, and Sophia has ballet class, and I need to see my friends from church that I haven't seen in 4 months, and the kids need to see their grandparents at least once this summer, and there's a social justice march this weekend, and it's so hot outside that we need to go to the YMCA and swim, and my roots are showing so I need to see my stylist, and this is all just fake news and fake numbers anyway, and I feel fine so why can't my best friend come over for dinner, and….
10:35- I don't get it. Are you trying to completely eliminate COVID-19 infection, period? Is that the goal, complete eradication of infection? How do we do that? Everyone on total lockdown, no leaving home for a month for any reason at all? There was a serious, long lock down that grossly exceeded the incubation and infection periods for this disease. It did not eliminate the infection. So are you demanding that everyone go even further than the March-May lockdown?
1:27 – I don't think very many people believe it needs to be eliminated completely before we can move on. That small percentage on the left are just as crazy as the small percentage on the right that say it's a complete hoax.
Even in the face of hysteria, Trump continues to demonstrate he is a federalist. Let the localities decide. That's what I voted for. Restraint. Deregulation. Freedom.
There is nothing about Trump that indicates he is a federalist. Because he isn't. He views himself as the head of all governments, and the states and governments as mere departments under his control. His equal branches of government he views as obstacles to what he wants to do.
He is an authoritarian. Full stop. Want more freedom? Vote Biden.
Because the local government has failed to live up to their obligation to protect the citizens of that state, that's why the feds have stepped in, including protection of federal property. By comparison, bunny-eyes Biden would sip on a juice box while Portland burns. But hey, he's in good with AOC, so all is good.
Right, that's why a state of insurrection has been declared, so that CBP can justifiably use their goonsquads to arrest people for walking down the street legally.
Oh wait. It hasn't. CBP sent in their good squads to snatch people off the street because they report to Barr, who's a little fascist, who reports to Trump, who's a big fascist. And neither of them are federalists. Of note, it was CBP because out of every federal law enforcement agency, they are the worst trained and the ones with the largest percentage of out and out racists. So, naturally, the ones with the highest tendency towards slobbering over Trump's knob.
Guest
Anonymous
July 17, 2020 7:00 pm
11:32 – Here's some info about the flawed study you shared.
There are only a couple posts on the Judge Hughes situation, but many posts on the pandemic.
Now, obviously, how the pandemic affects our practices is a gazillion times more important than some disciplinary decision regarding a judge.
But I dare say that if most lawyers took a moment to reflect on the more broad implications of this NSC decision, there would be significant discussion as to how it affects all our lives, careers and practices.
This is not just a slam down on a commission for improper discipline of an isolated judge.
The much larger implications, and the direct impact on our lives and practices, is that the NSC is indicating that ethical commissions(not just judicial discipline, but, by extension, state bar discipline of attorneys)
must not over-reach, and go beyond the realm of ethical violations and into the area where attorneys are being disciplined for how they handle their cases–matters which are far more appropriate for appellate review.
Now, I acknowledge that ethical rules for attorneys are much broader than ethical rules governing judges, in that the ethical rues governing attorneys do intrude into areas of the legal representation–diligence, competence, communication, etc.
But with that being understood, a review of ethical decisions sanctioning attorneys will also, quite often, reveal areas where an attorney is being disciplined for tactical decisions and approaches in the cases, and it may not be fair or reasonable to justify discipline in those areas simply by broadly citing the "competence" or "diligence" categories to pursue ethical discipline.
Completely wrong but should be completely right. The reason is the completely standards by which the Nevada Supreme Court sees attorney discipline and judicial discipline. I had a former Justice tell me that the view from the Bench is their ability to regulate "you" which they will do with impunity as opposed to judicial discipline is the ability to regulate "us".
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2020 2:58 am
4:40. I think I know what you are trying to say but(with the qualifier that my own grammar and diction leave much to be desired) your grammar and diction makes your point more difficult to decipher
I realize that this is an informal blog and all that, but come on.
Seems like Nevada is bound for another shut down. I think gyms and restaurants will be shut down within the next 20 days. Interesting how casinos are still open.
Fear, fear, fear. 99.978% of Clark County residents have survived Covid-19 so far, and you elude to shutting everything down again. Sad state of affairs we are in.
There is a finite capacity of ICU beds in our hospitals. The whole point of shutting things down is to keep the rate of spread under control. While lots of people will survive COVID, plenty (i.e., more than we have ICU beds for) will need ICU care. Letting the disease spread like wildfire will swamp the hospitals, which will then cause all kinds of other collateral harms. People with treatable conditions will die because the hospitals are all full up of COVID patients. People who need emergent care, who otherwise would've lived, will die because emergent care is unavailable.
Gov. Newsome, oops I mean Gov. Sisolack and all of the pandemic panic porn blue state politicos WANT to destroy the USA. The Constitution is no longer relevant. Personal choice, except killing unborn babies and smoking weed, is gone. Everyone / everything is canceled and unforgiven unless the offender is a democrat. Big urban (blue) cities are gone and are becoming wasteland. The economy in Nevada is gone and will have to be rebuilt through hundreds of billions of dollars in bankruptcy. All of you panic democrats pushing for to destroy what we have, let me say 2 things now. #1-Be careful what you ask for. #2-I told you so.
11:40 AM – Can you imagine any scenario in which you, my fellow citizen, would have an obligation to my, and the general public's health? I am not saying/promoting shut everything down and wreck the economy. Easy to take a position on the edge of the bell curve and incite people. But how /bout two sentences of a reasonable suggested alternative course of action?
11:54 AM – Challenge accepted. I wear a mask, wash my hands, social distance, and don't protest, riot or attack police and follow the law. These are reasonable and necessary things to do to put the pandemic porn to bed.
Here's a new challenge. Democrat policies including the newest one to "look the other way at protestors, rioters, and criminals" are destroying big cities. Convince me I'm wrong.
Guessing no one can convince you of anything. And so welcome to the new America. Don't worry I (and millions of others) view Republican policies with every bit the scorn you show towards Democrats. It is this dynmaic that is "destroying big cities" and the rest of America, only a matter of time.
On the one hand, some are bitching about shutting down again (mostly conservatives). I, for one, don't think we need another shutdown. I am left of center, but mindful that Nevada is different than California in that we are mostly a service-based economy and another shutdown will hurt us even much more than we are already hurting.
But on the other hand, a small percentage of conservatives (but an incredibly vocal one) are ADAMANT about not wearing masks or bitching about mask mandates. These individuals are poisoning society by their rhetoric and are likely contributing to the spread of COVID-19 by their actions.
You can't have it both ways, loony tunes!
I, for one, believe that if everyone wears masks pursuant to the recent mandate here, new cases should level out and/or diminish in the next few weeks – as there is about a 2-4 week delay in the spread and incubation period. That, plus social distancing, hand-washing, etc. Basically, just follow everything that's already been ordered, plus the mask mandate, and we'll get over this nasty thing (or at the very worst, keep it at a low level under a vaccine comes out).
Thank goodness for anonymous boards so I can speak my mind on this. I'll keep it brief.
I'm a Republican, and I can't stand this anti-mask rhetoric and bellyaching. No one is saying you have to wear a mask forever and never leave your home again. It's a band-aid – it's a temporary inconvenience as the world gets through a pandemic. This country has been in this situation before, we will again someday, and the VERY LEAST people can do is limit the spread of their mouth goo onto other, nonconsenting people.
I want to go out and play too. I just don't want to die because you cough on me, or have my mom die because she's older and you coughed on me and then later I hugged her. Just for one minute have some empathy toward the fact that hundreds of thousands of other people's family members have died this year, be GRATEFUL it wasn't you or yours that drew that straw, wear a dang face covering so you don't spit on people when you talk, and hope this blows over quick so we can all get back to our normal lives.
I'm happy we're all healthy enough to post on message boards and practice law, and I hope for continued health for all of you and your families and friends as well.
I could be 2:25. Exactly in the same boat.
12:47 and 2:25 are spot on.
Lifelong Republican here and I really can't understand why so many of my republican friends and family are so selfish and refuse to put a damn mask on.
Solution seems so easy – Go to work and wear a mask; go to the grocery store and wear a mask, go to the gym and wear a mask; don't engage in selfish, non-essential, risky, group activities (protests, family reunions, church, team sports, parties, etc.).
2:25 and 4:37 – agreed wholeheartedly, but do you still support the person who goaded these simpletons into their anti-mask positions for his own personal political gain?
If masks worked, foreign countries that have a mask mandate would not have gotten the virus and/or it would not have spread. We aren't China. Be like Sweden. Be like Georgia. Stay home. But don't tell me what to put on my face blocking AIR. I have 5 different types of face gear and all block air but keep in what I breathe out.
https://www.thelocal.se/20200608/why-isnt-sweden-asking-people-to-wear-face-masks
Those foreign countries clearly have as many infections as the USA and their spikes are as high and lasting as long. Stupid masks. Always killing and hurting people.
5:06 – I'm 4:37, if you're asking if I still support Trump, I do. Do I support him on his mask policy and/or coronavirus response? No. Will I vote for him in November? Yes, because I think he's better than the alternative in Biden. I'm becoming more and more independant the longer this nonsense goes on.
5:27 – If people stayed home as much as they could, then face masks wouldn't be needed as much. Swedish people weren't selfish and stayed home. https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/15/covid19-accidental-sweden-fall-could-be-catastrophic/
America was/is selfish and refuses to stay home as much as we should, so if you're going to be selfish and go out at least be selfless and wear a mask.
See Japan for effectiveness of masks: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelrush/2020/06/22/mask-use-still-widespread-in-slowly-reopening-japan-as-coronavirus-cases-remain-low/#2a8ef6981d60
If you are not a licensed attorney, a law student, a paralegal, law enforcement personnel, or in a job where you substantively contribute to the practice or enforcement of the law, then PLEASE STAY OFF THIS BLOG and take your tripe elsewhere.
I agree, 12:44, these Anti-Trump, Pro-Covid hysteria nitwits needs to head back to Huffpo blog.
Interesting how the NSC opinion yesterday might have changed the election results and yet now it is too late.
Yes, it still confirms that I am not voting for Rena Hughes or any of the idiots on the Nevada Supreme Court.
You don't have to worry about any of it, because if you kept more informed, you would realize that your chance to vote these people out has passed.
Rena Hughes lost in the Primary, so that talks care of that. And Justice Pickering, the incumbent NSC with a contested election, won outright in the Primary by taking more than 50% of the vote.
So, you got your wish as to Hughes, but as to your wish as to Pickering? Well, too bad. But she did not author the Hughes opinion(if that opinion is truly your primary motivation for voting out NSC justices)so I guess the Primary worked out okay for you.
Wow, 2:36. You seem a little bitter. If you took your liver pills you would not be so nasty during a pandemic. I feel bad for your husband you have to support.
Working on a writ right now, and I am reading a Nevada Court of Appeals opinion that is almost verbatim as respondent's brief that the ooinion ignores about 15 statutes, US constition, and about 15 to 20 cases that COA This is an en banc decision. A cold case of how fucked up the Nevada Court of Appeals is.
9:00 here, please excuse my typos.
All COA decisions are en banc.
No, they are not.
They're issuing decisions with less than 3 judges?
A quorum of a three-judge panel is two judges. As long as the two judges agree, just the two of them can render a decision.
I am looking at a writ decision with Gibbons and Silver.
When there are only three appellate judges, it is not en banc when three judges sign off.
Okay, so no COA's decisions are en banc? I have heard other people say that. Do you make a distinction between 2 and 3 COA's judges signing a deicision?
En banc is a term of art. When a court hears and decides cases in panels (like the SCt does now), then an en banc court is the full court (or less than a full court in the 9th Circuit because it is so big) but en banc just doesn't fit a 3 judge court.
As far as Judge Hughes, the problems with how she handled the case were issues concerning application of contempt of court procedures, technical notice issues, whether she applied the correct standards for change of custody matters, etc.
Those are matters for courts of review-not ethical panels. There is no serious, intentional ethical infraction at issue.
The commission, and its players, seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of their function.
Now, as a poster indicated yesterday, there may be exceptions, and there may be occasions when legal and procedural errors could have serious ethical overtones.
They pointed out the situation where a JP turned his courtroom into a farce, handcuffed the DPD and held her in contempt for arguing with him, and then proceeded against her clients without her being able to assist them, and then he ordered a law clerk from the PD's office to represent the defendants. When he was sanctioned for those atrocities, I did not complain that the Commission over-stepped its boundaries, as even though those were generally legal and procedural violations, the violations appeared quite intentional and manifested themselves in a real outrageous fashion.
I heard Chris Gaines will put on a concert if Garth Brooks wusses out.
Nicely done.
Do you remember the trademark dispute involving the Chris Gaines character? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5a0jTc9S10&list=PL8LxeO4qJhBPheX-UV2INbVcfHjZwW239
10:20–yes, she is vindicated but it is too little too late, as she was politically wounded by the ethics decision. There was media coverage of it, it seemingly caused lawyers to rate her down on the survey, and may have helped attract two candidates to her race. And then the pandemic hits, which largely dries up attorney contributions. Attorneys then become very selective about which incumbents they can contribute to, and they probably decide not to contribute much to an incumbent saddled with a recent and serious ethical decision, low ratings, and two viable opponents.
And from appearances, she did not appear to put much of her own money into the race, and may have also seen the hand writing on the wall and decided not to throw good money after bad.
But had the NSC reversal arrived by the end of last year, perhaps her election would have been a lot stronger and far more well supported.
It would be great if the armchair epidemiologists would stop. People refusing to wear masks is just idiotic. If everyone would wear a mask and stay home and social distance, we could end COVID, but no…this is 'merica and we have to show our a$$es at every possible opportunity. Even when it kills us.
Oh stop it 10:35! 10:27 has stated the obvious. You realize every day, you die a little more? It is inevitable. However, with the hydroxychloroquine plus Z-pak/Zinc option, you can live a fabulous life. MASK FREE btw.
The unintended hypocrisy of this post is telling
But, but, but Johnny has tee ball practice, and Sophia has ballet class, and I need to see my friends from church that I haven't seen in 4 months, and the kids need to see their grandparents at least once this summer, and there's a social justice march this weekend, and it's so hot outside that we need to go to the YMCA and swim, and my roots are showing so I need to see my stylist, and this is all just fake news and fake numbers anyway, and I feel fine so why can't my best friend come over for dinner, and….
Hey 11:08 – Are you stuck in March? https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-mild-covid-19/
Do the weirdos that wear their mask while driving also wear it in their house? How about when they go to sleep? In the shower? …asking for a friend.
@11:23a – I'm not 11:08a, but I'm thinking he/she may be stuck in July. https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
Yes. I suspect 11:08 is attempting to effectuate Darwinian change in this country. (No I am not 11:08).
Defund the mask police (take away their Xanax until rational thought returns).
10:35- I don't get it. Are you trying to completely eliminate COVID-19 infection, period? Is that the goal, complete eradication of infection? How do we do that? Everyone on total lockdown, no leaving home for a month for any reason at all? There was a serious, long lock down that grossly exceeded the incubation and infection periods for this disease. It did not eliminate the infection. So are you demanding that everyone go even further than the March-May lockdown?
11:08: From me to you
1:27 – I don't think very many people believe it needs to be eliminated completely before we can move on. That small percentage on the left are just as crazy as the small percentage on the right that say it's a complete hoax.
Even in the face of hysteria, Trump continues to demonstrate he is a federalist. Let the localities decide. That's what I voted for. Restraint. Deregulation. Freedom.
7:20,
There is nothing about Trump that indicates he is a federalist. Because he isn't. He views himself as the head of all governments, and the states and governments as mere departments under his control. His equal branches of government he views as obstacles to what he wants to do.
He is an authoritarian. Full stop. Want more freedom? Vote Biden.
During the AIDS epidemic did they require homosexual men (80% of infectees) to wear condoms?
Or would that have been too intrusive?
Orange Man Bad is always the answer
If they pulled their dick out in the grocery store it was not required, but they did lock them up as a criminal.
If trump is leaving it to the locals, then why is he mandating schools open and invading Portland.
Because the local government has failed to live up to their obligation to protect the citizens of that state, that's why the feds have stepped in, including protection of federal property. By comparison, bunny-eyes Biden would sip on a juice box while Portland burns. But hey, he's in good with AOC, so all is good.
I hate condoms.
5:43,
Right, that's why a state of insurrection has been declared, so that CBP can justifiably use their goonsquads to arrest people for walking down the street legally.
Oh wait. It hasn't. CBP sent in their good squads to snatch people off the street because they report to Barr, who's a little fascist, who reports to Trump, who's a big fascist. And neither of them are federalists. Of note, it was CBP because out of every federal law enforcement agency, they are the worst trained and the ones with the largest percentage of out and out racists. So, naturally, the ones with the highest tendency towards slobbering over Trump's knob.
11:32 – Here's some info about the flawed study you shared.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/08/a-flawed-covid-19-study-gets-the-white-houses-attention-and-the-fda-may-pay-the-price/
There are only a couple posts on the Judge Hughes situation, but many posts on the pandemic.
Now, obviously, how the pandemic affects our practices is a gazillion times more important than some disciplinary decision regarding a judge.
But I dare say that if most lawyers took a moment to reflect on the more broad implications of this NSC decision, there would be significant discussion as to how it affects all our lives, careers and practices.
This is not just a slam down on a commission for improper discipline of an isolated judge.
The much larger implications, and the direct impact on our lives and practices, is that the NSC is indicating that ethical commissions(not just judicial discipline, but, by extension, state bar discipline of attorneys)
must not over-reach, and go beyond the realm of ethical violations and into the area where attorneys are being disciplined for how they handle their cases–matters which are far more appropriate for appellate review.
Now, I acknowledge that ethical rules for attorneys are much broader than ethical rules governing judges, in that the ethical rues governing attorneys do intrude into areas of the legal representation–diligence, competence, communication, etc.
But with that being understood, a review of ethical decisions sanctioning attorneys will also, quite often, reveal areas where an attorney is being disciplined for tactical decisions and approaches in the cases, and it may not be fair or reasonable to justify discipline in those areas simply by broadly citing the "competence" or "diligence" categories to pursue ethical discipline.
Best post, most insightful post I have read on here in months, you're right.
Completely wrong but should be completely right. The reason is the completely standards by which the Nevada Supreme Court sees attorney discipline and judicial discipline. I had a former Justice tell me that the view from the Bench is their ability to regulate "you" which they will do with impunity as opposed to judicial discipline is the ability to regulate "us".
4:40. I think I know what you are trying to say but(with the qualifier that my own grammar and diction leave much to be desired) your grammar and diction makes your point more difficult to decipher
I realize that this is an informal blog and all that, but come on.