Craig Mueller is representing the CrossFit gym suing Governor Sisolak (and some Metro officers) over the shutdown order. [RJ]
Several lawyers weigh in on the liability of businesses reopening during the pandemic. [RJ]
Nevada Supreme Court candidate Esther Rodriguez opines on keeping politics out of the judicial system. [RGJ]
Administrative Order 20-16 requires everyone to wear face masks when entering court facilities and restricts elevator occupancy to 4 people at a time. [Eightjdcourt blog]
If you haven’t voted yet, this weekend is your last chance to vote for the Board of Governors. It’s also a good time to fill out your mail in ballots for the primary election if you haven’t already done so.
While it certainly won’t be like any in recent memory, we hope that you all find a way to have a safe and enjoyable Memorial Day weekend. If you drink, please don’t drive. If you do drive somewhere, please wear a mask and follow social distancing protocol.
The Esther Rodriguez piece is decent. But as far as separating politics from the judicial system, we crossed a line a long time ago that we are unlikely to ever re-cross. Here, in Nevada, the system encourages judicial candidates to peddle their services to the highest bidder. The judges take full advantage of this. And those who are able to buy the judges receive the benefits for which they pay. In 25 years of civil practice here in Las Vegas, I've learned that the game is the game, the players are just playing by its rules, and speaking up against it is a loser's task.
Rodriguez's mailer is totally misleading. She calls out Pickering for dissenting in the bail case and says Pickering "sides with bail bondsmen." The problem is that the dissent explicitly says that she agrees with the substance of the majority opinion. She believed the case was moot.
Pickering is without a doubt the least outcome oriented judge on the court. She follows the law without fear or favor. We need more people who aren't afraid to call balls and strikes that way.
Ask Pickering about the time she plowed her car into a UPS Store, claiming the brakes had failed, when in fact her dogs had been seen climbing all over her in the car. The dogs caused her to lose control, not the brakes. She lied to the police, who had no trouble backing out the car from the UPS Store. She immediately let law enforcement know who she was, and they gave her a break. Yes, she is a real saint!!!!
Actually, Kris Pickering claimed the problem was a "stuck accelerator" which is also highly questionable in a late model Mercedes station wagon. The police backed out the car from the store and had no problem with the accelerator. The manager of the store told police he saw dogs in the car crawling all over Pickering, but the police gave her a pass.
As far as the Esther Rodriguez piece goes, this has been going on for decades. And this bipartisan,polarized political approach, is far more of a problem in higher federal courts of review(which are appointed, non-elected judges) than it is in lower state trial courts(where the judges are often there through an election process).
I toss that out as further consideration for the fact that appointment of judges, rather than electing them, is no panacea that would largely remove politics from the process.
There are some really dramatic examples from our U.S Supreme Court that fall pretty much, if not totally along party lines.
As to the decision halting or denying the Florida recount following the 2000 Bush/Gore race,that fell completely along party lines. Those who were appointed by a Republican president took the positon no further recount occurs and that Bush be certified as our next President, while those favoring a recount were all appointed by a democratic president.
Fast forward to a few years later and we have the decision on the Affordable Care Act(or ObamaCare, if you prefer. The decision of whether that was a sound exercise of presidential constitutional authority, should have been examined and analyzed in an impartial, scholarly fashion.
But it was clear from the inception it would not. And the presidential authority Act was upheld 5 to 4. I'm not debating whether it should have been upheld, only that the motivations behind each justices decision should have been based on many critical factors, none of which should have been a slavish devotion to party loyalty as to who appointed each justices.
But one important qualifier and exception to what I point out. The Florida recount case fell identical down party lines, while in the Obama Care case there was key exception–Justice Roberts ruled in favor of the presidential authority issue relative to the plan,although Roberts was a Republican appointee).
4:24– And this political polarization of society goes well beyond critical court decisions, and trickles down to everyday society.
There was a study concerning people's perspective of global warming or climate change. They interviewed a large number of people with strong opinions for or against. They determined that well in excess of 90% of these people had never actually read a scientific-based discussion of the matter, whether it be a book or article.
Nor had this 90%+ of people even seen a film either pro or con. And that is interesting as even though a film featuring Al Gore or Mike Michael Moore clearly have an agenda on the issue, as would conflicting films prepared by those on the other side of the issue, the films, no matter how politically motivated, would have invariably included much more of a scientific deep dive(although, again, tainted) than these sound bite statements by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
What the study concluded was that registered republicans invariably viewed the climate change issue as a "fraud" while the registered democrats viewed it as "sound science".
That's not surprising, but the study made it clear where the overwhelming majority of people got their opinion, and it was in no way, shape or form based on any actual analysis of the "science."
Most democrats got their views primarily, if not solely, from sound bite statements from democrat politicians that climate change is "sound science". The republicans got their views primarily, if not solely, from sound bite statements from republican politicians that climate change is a "hoax."
I'm not arguing that there is not a scientific basis for climate change. I'm just saying that those who support climate change as valid, even if, for the sake of argument, we concede they are right, do not have any superior analytical skills or independent research skills than the "hoax" camp. They have spent no more time on the issue than the "hoax" people.
According to the study,the "climate change" camp fancies themselves as far more intelligent, scientific and analytic than the "hoax" camp, but problem is they have independently researched and read on the subject no more than the "hoax" people have.
Apparently, one's view on this issue(regardless of which camp is ultimately more valid)is almost always based on simply parroting back the statements of the politicians of the same political party of those expressing the opinions.
The benefit of appointment is not to depoliticize the bench (which is impossible, and may not even be desirable), or to increase the competence of the judiciary (though I think appointment *on average* does get more qualified people on the bench than voting does). It is to insulate judges from political pressure once they're appointed.
Even if it's just political hacks getting appointed, the lack of post-appointment pressure can make a big difference. For example, I think one of the biggest issues people have is the perception or reality that some judges consider campaign contributions in their decisions. That concern would go away overnight if state judges were appointed instead of elected.
5:02, I get what you're saying that it removes the pressure of periodic campaigning and fund-raising, and the tainting effects.
But although the constant political pressure on appointed judges(who are never subject to election) isn't as obvious as the pressures on judges subject to re-election, and the pressure is of a different variety, in its own more subtle way it is just as profound.
Many federal appointees seem to remain slavishly devoted to the philosophies and policies of the political party from which they were appointed. Much of that, is of course, self-imposed, but the external pressures are still there. For example, the majority of federally appointed judges at some point climb the federal judicial totem pole. One can't expect to do so if they become the bold independent thinker not beholden to politics once appointed to their first federal post.
But viewing the matter on a state or county level, involving judges who must be subject to elections, as in Nevada some of the judges obtain their post through appointment, and some are elected. Whether appointed or elected, they must still of course subsequently run to retain their seats.
Now, what about the quality of those who obtain their seats by appointment vs. elections? As we can see from our RJC bench, both of these processes provide us good judges, bad judges, and in between judges.
That said, I infer from a point you made that we are less likely to wind up initially with some really unqualified and inappropriate candidate from appointment than are with elections.
And yes,the vetting process is so extensive that seldom is some really inappropriate person initially appointed, while such individuals sometimes get through the election process.
Guest
Anonymous
May 22, 2020 7:33 pm
Off topic. On the July Bar Exam. Foolish decision, lowering the admission standards. It seems to me that the overall quality of new lawyers has been declining for sometime. An online essay only exam is ripe for cheating.
Far better to have either postponed the July exam entirely and,if politically necessary, give provisional licensing to applicants who have qualified to take the bar exam, continued licensing contingent on passing in February.
I dunno about provisional licensing. First, if so, starting WHEN? Anyone taking the July exam wouldn't know whether they even passes until mid-October.
Disagree re the quality of new lawyers. In my experience the lawyers who have been practicing 10-15 years are, on the whole, far better than the lawyers who have been practicing 25+ years.
Guest
Anonymous
May 22, 2020 9:01 pm
I stand with the "losers" fighting for justice in an unjust legal system.
Is something else going on? I feel like I am living in a bad straight to video movie. I'm only waiting for Nick Cage to show up and be my sidekick.
We know that the death rate is primarily among old or compromised. Others may get sick but they recover at a rate above 99%. This is not even a blip for kids under 20. Do we have to stop the world when a small part of the population is at risk? Does anyone else have similar feelings about the current state of the world?
The number of deaths specifically caused by covid itself have been in consistent controversy since day one of this epidemic, so getting on a high moral horse and shouting some sort of death-count gotcha zinger is rather weak at best. Truth be told, that position deserves a good plasticizing, but I'm too lazy to copy and paste right now.
Selectively shutting down the economy definitely was an overreaction. However, I hear Bezos and Amazon have made a killing because of the selective shutdown. Let's hear it for the monopolists!
As to 4:08 PM, the number of "normal" flu deaths each year ranges from approximately 10x to 20x the number of 9-11 deaths. Suicides are approximately 15x 9-11 deaths. There are reports the number of suicides will increase this year because of the shutdown and surrounding economic fallout. Nothing to ignore but certainly did not require the shutting down the economy and destroying lives.
The COVID 19 shutdown was an example of over-reaction. Additionally, the "masks" being required to be worn have specific warnings that they do not protect from COVID. To protect against virus exposure, you essentially have to wear a complete hazmat suit because viruses can enter the body through any opening including your eyes and ears for example.
9:52, what you're missing is that masks minimize the spread of respiratory droplets. Sure, a virus is so small that it can make its way through a cloth mask. But they're spread through basically droplets of spit expelled into the air. If everyone's wearing a mask you have much fewer droplets in the air. Is it 100%? Absolutely not, but it helps.
Your hazmat suit example is what you would need for everyone to be 100% protected. Nobody is saying that wearing masks will give you 100% protection. But it helps. I have always hated these kinds of arguments. You know, if you can't solve 100% of the problem then you shouldn't do X, a thing that at least helps mitigate the problem. That's stupid. If you can do a couple things that help to minimize the spread (and minimize your chance of getting it), then you should do those things.
1:12, the same arguments were made decades ago with seat belts. "You can still die if you wear a seat belt, so seat belts are unnecessary." Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
That said, 9:52 might be right about the unintended consequences of the shutdown. But that has nothing to do with the minor inconvenience of people wearing masks.
Guest
Anonymous
May 22, 2020 10:37 pm
Admin Order 20-16 did not lift any of the delays on discovery or offers of judgment or anything else correct? We remain in a holding pattern?
That’s my reading of it. Have not seen anything to the contrary. The four to an elevator thing combined with the difficulties in assembling jury panels will be a real cluster____ that will have repercussions for mo this to come.
The notice of withdrawal filed is surprisingly bitchy in tone: "The Court having failed to resolve the petition for an advisory writ of mandamus by the requested date…"
Hah, you got them alright, 4:54. How about the justices do their jobs instead of trolling lawyers. You are the one trolling, Kris Pickering. All the above poster said was bye to Bulla, Pickering, and Hardesty. You are the one making it personal.
9:28 — Not a judge. However, if you actually knew how hard these people work to bring integrity and quality to the bench, and then you read someone mouthing off about the character of people he plainly is clueless about, you'd take it personally, too. Hah.
Don't know what level you practice at, but at the appellate level everything is read, and the arguments are taken very seriously. So sad that losers complain more than winners.
Guest
Anonymous
May 24, 2020 4:13 pm
OMG, you posters are annoying. I will say though, I voted for Esther Rodriguez. Not sure on Bulla. Kris Pickering is a Trump supporter. No, I cannot vote for her. As for the justices reading the briefs, their orders don't reflect that they were read.
On a more serious note, do not worry, the local machine will make sure your ballot is corrected before being tallied. Mail-in voting ensures no silly populist outcomes.
You can not accuse Justice Pickering of not reading the briefs. She is the intellect of the court. She writes lengthy reasoned opinions. She is very thorough.
Guest
Anonymous
May 26, 2020 4:19 pm
Lol please. Pickering is as far from Trump in intellect and demeanor possible. She is his polar opposite. I can't see her pulling the lever for Trump at all. Get outta here Pickering trolls.
I was thinking the same thing 9:19. She might be a republican. But no way she's a trumpian republican. She has too much intellectual ego to side with liars and conspiracy theorists.
The Esther Rodriguez piece is decent. But as far as separating politics from the judicial system, we crossed a line a long time ago that we are unlikely to ever re-cross. Here, in Nevada, the system encourages judicial candidates to peddle their services to the highest bidder. The judges take full advantage of this. And those who are able to buy the judges receive the benefits for which they pay. In 25 years of civil practice here in Las Vegas, I've learned that the game is the game, the players are just playing by its rules, and speaking up against it is a loser's task.
Great Analysis!
When you say "a loser's task", did you really mean to say "a fool's errand"?
Rodriguez's mailer is totally misleading. She calls out Pickering for dissenting in the bail case and says Pickering "sides with bail bondsmen." The problem is that the dissent explicitly says that she agrees with the substance of the majority opinion. She believed the case was moot.
Out Pickering. A Republican, bye bye.
Pickering is without a doubt the least outcome oriented judge on the court. She follows the law without fear or favor. We need more people who aren't afraid to call balls and strikes that way.
2:41: I agree, and I'm a left wing Democrat(ic Socialist). Take a look at her opinion in DeMarlo Berry.
Ask Pickering about the time she plowed her car into a UPS Store, claiming the brakes had failed, when in fact her dogs had been seen climbing all over her in the car. The dogs caused her to lose control, not the brakes. She lied to the police, who had no trouble backing out the car from the UPS Store. She immediately let law enforcement know who she was, and they gave her a break. Yes, she is a real saint!!!!
Yes she was driving a Mercedes station wagon. Little chance the brakes failed.
Actually, Kris Pickering claimed the problem was a "stuck accelerator" which is also highly questionable in a late model Mercedes station wagon. The police backed out the car from the store and had no problem with the accelerator. The manager of the store told police he saw dogs in the car crawling all over Pickering, but the police gave her a pass.
Dave Thomas is getting desperate.
Were the dogs OK???
Place your foot off the accelerstor, Kris Pickering. Pay the UPS store owner for his postage. Pick up a law book. And get back into your limosuine.
As far as the Esther Rodriguez piece goes, this has been going on for decades. And this bipartisan,polarized political approach, is far more of a problem in higher federal courts of review(which are appointed, non-elected judges) than it is in lower state trial courts(where the judges are often there through an election process).
I toss that out as further consideration for the fact that appointment of judges, rather than electing them, is no panacea that would largely remove politics from the process.
There are some really dramatic examples from our U.S Supreme Court that fall pretty much, if not totally along party lines.
As to the decision halting or denying the Florida recount following the 2000 Bush/Gore race,that fell completely along party lines. Those who were appointed by a Republican president took the positon no further recount occurs and that Bush be certified as our next President, while those favoring a recount were all appointed by a democratic president.
Fast forward to a few years later and we have the decision on the Affordable Care Act(or ObamaCare, if you prefer. The decision of whether that was a sound exercise of presidential constitutional authority, should have been examined and analyzed in an impartial, scholarly fashion.
But it was clear from the inception it would not. And the presidential authority Act was upheld 5 to 4. I'm not debating whether it should have been upheld, only that the motivations behind each justices decision should have been based on many critical factors, none of which should have been a slavish devotion to party loyalty as to who appointed each justices.
But one important qualifier and exception to what I point out. The Florida recount case fell identical down party lines, while in the Obama Care case there was key exception–Justice Roberts ruled in favor of the presidential authority issue relative to the plan,although Roberts was a Republican appointee).
4:24– And this political polarization of society goes well beyond critical court decisions, and trickles down to everyday society.
There was a study concerning people's perspective of global warming or climate change. They interviewed a large number of people with strong opinions for or against. They determined that well in excess of 90% of these people had never actually read a scientific-based discussion of the matter, whether it be a book or article.
Nor had this 90%+ of people even seen a film either pro or con. And that is interesting as even though a film featuring Al Gore or Mike Michael Moore clearly have an agenda on the issue, as would conflicting films prepared by those on the other side of the issue, the films, no matter how politically motivated, would have invariably included much more of a scientific deep dive(although, again, tainted) than these sound bite statements by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
What the study concluded was that registered republicans invariably viewed the climate change issue as a "fraud" while the registered democrats viewed it as "sound science".
That's not surprising, but the study made it clear where the overwhelming majority of people got their opinion, and it was in no way, shape or form based on any actual analysis of the "science."
Most democrats got their views primarily, if not solely, from sound bite statements from democrat politicians that climate change is "sound science". The republicans got their views primarily, if not solely, from sound bite statements from republican politicians that climate change is a "hoax."
I'm not arguing that there is not a scientific basis for climate change. I'm just saying that those who support climate change as valid, even if, for the sake of argument, we concede they are right, do not have any superior analytical skills or independent research skills than the "hoax" camp. They have spent no more time on the issue than the "hoax" people.
According to the study,the "climate change" camp fancies themselves as far more intelligent, scientific and analytic than the "hoax" camp, but problem is they have independently researched and read on the subject no more than the "hoax" people have.
Apparently, one's view on this issue(regardless of which camp is ultimately more valid)is almost always based on simply parroting back the statements of the politicians of the same political party of those expressing the opinions.
The benefit of appointment is not to depoliticize the bench (which is impossible, and may not even be desirable), or to increase the competence of the judiciary (though I think appointment *on average* does get more qualified people on the bench than voting does). It is to insulate judges from political pressure once they're appointed.
Even if it's just political hacks getting appointed, the lack of post-appointment pressure can make a big difference. For example, I think one of the biggest issues people have is the perception or reality that some judges consider campaign contributions in their decisions. That concern would go away overnight if state judges were appointed instead of elected.
5:02, I get what you're saying that it removes the pressure of periodic campaigning and fund-raising, and the tainting effects.
But although the constant political pressure on appointed judges(who are never subject to election) isn't as obvious as the pressures on judges subject to re-election, and the pressure is of a different variety, in its own more subtle way it is just as profound.
Many federal appointees seem to remain slavishly devoted to the philosophies and policies of the political party from which they were appointed. Much of that, is of course, self-imposed, but the external pressures are still there. For example, the majority of federally appointed judges at some point climb the federal judicial totem pole. One can't expect to do so if they become the bold independent thinker not beholden to politics once appointed to their first federal post.
But viewing the matter on a state or county level, involving judges who must be subject to elections, as in Nevada some of the judges obtain their post through appointment, and some are elected. Whether appointed or elected, they must still of course subsequently run to retain their seats.
Now, what about the quality of those who obtain their seats by appointment vs. elections? As we can see from our RJC bench, both of these processes provide us good judges, bad judges, and in between judges.
That said, I infer from a point you made that we are less likely to wind up initially with some really unqualified and inappropriate candidate from appointment than are with elections.
And yes,the vetting process is so extensive that seldom is some really inappropriate person initially appointed, while such individuals sometimes get through the election process.
Off topic. On the July Bar Exam. Foolish decision, lowering the admission standards. It seems to me that the overall quality of new lawyers has been declining for sometime. An online essay only exam is ripe for cheating.
Far better to have either postponed the July exam entirely and,if politically necessary, give provisional licensing to applicants who have qualified to take the bar exam, continued licensing contingent on passing in February.
Provisional licensing seems like it would have been the best option.
I agree. Issue them the equivalent of a learner's permit good until they take and pass the February 2021 exam.
I dunno about provisional licensing. First, if so, starting WHEN? Anyone taking the July exam wouldn't know whether they even passes until mid-October.
Disagree re the quality of new lawyers. In my experience the lawyers who have been practicing 10-15 years are, on the whole, far better than the lawyers who have been practicing 25+ years.
I stand with the "losers" fighting for justice in an unjust legal system.
Admirable. Still, a fool's errand.
COVID19 is the biggest scam in history.
Bold. Probably true.
Is something else going on? I feel like I am living in a bad straight to video movie. I'm only waiting for Nick Cage to show up and be my sidekick.
We know that the death rate is primarily among old or compromised. Others may get sick but they recover at a rate above 99%. This is not even a blip for kids under 20. Do we have to stop the world when a small part of the population is at risk? Does anyone else have similar feelings about the current state of the world?
The death toll stands at over 40 separate 9/11s (and counting), even with herculean mitigation efforts, and you think it's no big deal?
This is 4:08, I apologize for my exaggeration, I just did the math and it's actually only 32.3 9/11s so far
The number of deaths specifically caused by covid itself have been in consistent controversy since day one of this epidemic, so getting on a high moral horse and shouting some sort of death-count gotcha zinger is rather weak at best. Truth be told, that position deserves a good plasticizing, but I'm too lazy to copy and paste right now.
May 22 @ 2:13
Selectively shutting down the economy definitely was an overreaction. However, I hear Bezos and Amazon have made a killing because of the selective shutdown. Let's hear it for the monopolists!
Yay! Oligarchs rule! May I have some bread and an hour outside, please?
As to 4:08 PM, the number of "normal" flu deaths each year ranges from approximately 10x to 20x the number of 9-11 deaths. Suicides are approximately 15x 9-11 deaths. There are reports the number of suicides will increase this year because of the shutdown and surrounding economic fallout. Nothing to ignore but certainly did not require the shutting down the economy and destroying lives.
The COVID 19 shutdown was an example of over-reaction. Additionally, the "masks" being required to be worn have specific warnings that they do not protect from COVID. To protect against virus exposure, you essentially have to wear a complete hazmat suit because viruses can enter the body through any opening including your eyes and ears for example.
9:52, what you're missing is that masks minimize the spread of respiratory droplets. Sure, a virus is so small that it can make its way through a cloth mask. But they're spread through basically droplets of spit expelled into the air. If everyone's wearing a mask you have much fewer droplets in the air. Is it 100%? Absolutely not, but it helps.
Your hazmat suit example is what you would need for everyone to be 100% protected. Nobody is saying that wearing masks will give you 100% protection. But it helps. I have always hated these kinds of arguments. You know, if you can't solve 100% of the problem then you shouldn't do X, a thing that at least helps mitigate the problem. That's stupid. If you can do a couple things that help to minimize the spread (and minimize your chance of getting it), then you should do those things.
1:12, the same arguments were made decades ago with seat belts. "You can still die if you wear a seat belt, so seat belts are unnecessary." Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
That said, 9:52 might be right about the unintended consequences of the shutdown. But that has nothing to do with the minor inconvenience of people wearing masks.
Admin Order 20-16 did not lift any of the delays on discovery or offers of judgment or anything else correct? We remain in a holding pattern?
That’s my reading of it. Have not seen anything to the contrary. The four to an elevator thing combined with the difficulties in assembling jury panels will be a real cluster____ that will have repercussions for mo this to come.
*months
f#@k
Justice Hardesty has withdrawn his bid to become the next NSHE chancellor. https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/hardesty-withdraws-bid-to-become-next-higher-education-system-leader
The notice of withdrawal filed is surprisingly bitchy in tone: "The Court having failed to resolve the petition for an advisory writ of mandamus by the requested date…"
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=58491&csIID=58491&deLinkID=771563&onBaseDocumentNumber=20-19476
Good. Now vote out Bulla.
Wait wait wait, Hardesty is bitching at the speed at which the Nevada Supreme Court resolves cases. You (Choose Your Own Invective) hypocrite!
Bye, Jimmy. Bye, Krissy. Bye, Bonnie.
4:38 — . . . Bye, Fool.
5:38, you a justice? You are a fool, Kris Pickering.
5:45 — Ha, ha. Gotcha. Not even close. Don't be so hateful. Try being a better lawyer. Then you won't get so angry with good judges.
Hah, you got them alright, 4:54. How about the justices do their jobs instead of trolling lawyers. You are the one trolling, Kris Pickering. All the above poster said was bye to Bulla, Pickering, and Hardesty. You are the one making it personal.
9:28 — Not a judge. However, if you actually knew how hard these people work to bring integrity and quality to the bench, and then you read someone mouthing off about the character of people he plainly is clueless about, you'd take it personally, too. Hah.
10!55, sure. They work hard not doing their job or reading the briefs. So defensive. Thank you for the laugh, Kris Pickering.
Don't know what level you practice at, but at the appellate level everything is read, and the arguments are taken very seriously. So sad that losers complain more than winners.
OMG, you posters are annoying. I will say though, I voted for Esther Rodriguez. Not sure on Bulla. Kris Pickering is a Trump supporter. No, I cannot vote for her. As for the justices reading the briefs, their orders don't reflect that they were read.
Is that true about Pickering? Damn. Already sent my ballot in.
Trump is the best President ever. Go, Kris!!!!
On a more serious note, do not worry, the local machine will make sure your ballot is corrected before being tallied. Mail-in voting ensures no silly populist outcomes.
I don't believe that Pickering is a Trump supporter.
You can not accuse Justice Pickering of not reading the briefs. She is the intellect of the court. She writes lengthy reasoned opinions. She is very thorough.
Lol please. Pickering is as far from Trump in intellect and demeanor possible. She is his polar opposite. I can't see her pulling the lever for Trump at all. Get outta here Pickering trolls.
You dare suggest she would pull the lever for a doddering old corrupt political hack with severe dementia? Say it is not so.
I was thinking the same thing 9:19. She might be a republican. But no way she's a trumpian republican. She has too much intellectual ego to side with liars and conspiracy theorists.