The RJ Family Court "Debates" are laughable, as they could no way be considered a debate.
A debate involves taking potentially controversial positons, or at least positons that are not supported by a large segment of the electorate. Now, I realize judges are more restrained, via ethical rules, than other political races as to campaign activities.
But with that understood, come on! For the debate held for one of the departments the headline proclaimed that the candidates assert that the best interests of children should be a major focus. Who could possibly take issue with that? It's like when a politician thinks they are being gutsy or edgy by arguing that child molesters and predators should be harshly punished. Everyone would presumably agree with that, except the molesters themselves.
Of course perhaps I may be assuming too much. Is there a candidate who does not believe the best interests of children is important to protect?(let's hope not).
And in another Family Court race, these candidates went out of their way not only proclaiming that a donation(no matter how large) would never cause preferential treatment, but they also went further and seemed to suggest, IMO, that if they received a donation from one side, that they would go out of their way to over-compensate for the other side in order to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety. At least that is the inference I took from it.So, not only did these candidates argue that donations do not afford one better treatment, but they seemed to view donations, at best with indifference, and at worst with hostility and disdain.
They are, of course, not being at all sincere, IMO, but are simply pandering to the media and the public.
This is not only biting the hand that feeds them, but these candidates are tearing off the whole hand.
One must be adroit and circumspect when answering questions concerning the nexus between contributions and preferential treatment. That takes preparation,consideration and consultation. None of that was on display here.
Instead, it was quite entertaining to see them try to top each other to prove which one of them despised and hated contributions the most.
Guest
Anonymous
May 4, 2020 7:34 pm
Dan Hill practices criminal defense and has been licensed less than 8 years… How is this guy qualified to take on that complex litigation? And why is he even being considered by city council? Something stinks.
I was thinking the same thing and wondering if he knows someone high up. He could also learn the law if he doesn't know that type of law as could any attorney…
He is not. That's idiotic. Just because an attorney represents someone (especially in a criminal defense case) does mean they adopt that person's bizarre political beliefs.
It does not mean you adopt their beliefs; however it can mean that you are a darling to people who have adopted those beliefs.
Guest
Anonymous
May 4, 2020 8:30 pm
11:57–it's always difficult for judicial candidates to address questions concerning the role contributions play in these races. And this becomes even more amplified on account that the media, and a certain percentage of the public as well, realize that those who contribute are primarily attorneys who practice in such court.
But as difficult as it is, skilled campaigners learn to straddle the fence. They, in the broadest of terms, when confronted with this question, will indicate they will always be fair and impartial and are not affected by anything except what occurs in the case itself. They will then try to avoid elaborating further, and will then try to segue into other areas.
The mistake made here is that these candidates got a little too specific, and went well beyond some blanket statement of impartiality. The one candidate,quite unwisely in my view, personalized the issue and drew upon past experience and lamented past situations when judges seemed too chummy to the opposing side, who also presumably contributed. This seemed to suggest a campaign philosophy of "Please don't taint and compromise me by giving me any money", while a generic declaration of being impartial on all cases would have sufficed.
And one of the other candidates in the race did no better, and also seemed to suggest the inherent tainting evils of monetary contributions in judicial races.
Unlike 11:57, I can't assume they were pandering. Perhaps one or both of them believe these representations to varying degrees. But neither was a politically savvy response.
For the one candidate, with no website and seemingly few resources, it may not matter too much. For the other attorney, who apparently lists a veritable "Who's Who" of Family Court litigators as supporters, his response, on such issue, needs some work–such as speak in a conclusory generality concerning a commitment to fairness and impartiality, and avoid too many details.
This is not the time or place for nuance or personal anecdotes.
Guest
Anonymous
May 4, 2020 8:39 pm
11:57 here.1:30 is right in that I can't know how sincere they were or were not.
I will assume they were sincere,but still,the answers need some work.
Whatthey both said was true, and I certainly agree with it, and I assume most other people would as well.
But these candidates, in order to survive the primary,presumably need contributions. So,that said, it's always critical for them, and all candidates, to remember which side their bread is buttered on.
Guest
Anonymous
May 4, 2020 9:20 pm
What? “Every Nevadan is going to have to go without something as a result of this,” Sisolak said in an interview with the Sun, “and that’s just the way it is.”
Wait, I thought all the union members, especially the state employees, are making full salary and benefits while I have no income. Is that right? Did I miss something? So, Governor, please don't say "every" Nevadan.
All I could find were some part timers getting laid off. I imagine there must be more. The decline in tax revenue will be in the hundreds of millions. I hope PERS stays intact.
Most that I have seen is part timers so far. Local govt parks & rec/after school programs have been gutted and other temp labor fillings have stopped. Full timers will follow with the new fiscal year budgets in July (and once the two month lag in tax revenues starts hitting later this month and in June). Probably a combination of layoffs and wide scale pay cuts/furloughs. So yeah OP, almost all full time govt employees still have their job right now at full salary. But nobody will have that full salary in a month or two and many will be laid off. So quit yer bitchin.
6:07 here again. At "Wait, I thought all the union members, especially the state employees, are making full salary and benefits while I have no income. Is that right? Did I miss something? So, Governor, please don't say "every" Nevadan." Yes, I am talking about government UNION workers having been furloughed.
Obviously that won't happen, because Dear Leader is winding down the coronavirus task force. Clearly, he wouldn't do something that, if not active malfeasance, would be at least gross negligence, if he'd received credible intelligence of a viral threat, right?
The RJ Family Court "Debates" are laughable, as they could no way be considered a debate.
A debate involves taking potentially controversial positons, or at least positons that are not supported by a large segment of the electorate. Now, I realize judges are more restrained, via ethical rules, than other political races as to campaign activities.
But with that understood, come on! For the debate held for one of the departments the headline proclaimed that the candidates assert that the best interests of children should be a major focus. Who could possibly take issue with that? It's like when a politician thinks they are being gutsy or edgy by arguing that child molesters and predators should be harshly punished. Everyone would presumably agree with that, except the molesters themselves.
Of course perhaps I may be assuming too much. Is there a candidate who does not believe the best interests of children is important to protect?(let's hope not).
And in another Family Court race, these candidates went out of their way not only proclaiming that a donation(no matter how large) would never cause preferential treatment, but they also went further and seemed to suggest, IMO, that if they received a donation from one side, that they would go out of their way to over-compensate for the other side in order to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety. At least that is the inference I took from it.So, not only did these candidates argue that donations do not afford one better treatment, but they seemed to view donations, at best with indifference, and at worst with hostility and disdain.
They are, of course, not being at all sincere, IMO, but are simply pandering to the media and the public.
This is not only biting the hand that feeds them, but these candidates are tearing off the whole hand.
One must be adroit and circumspect when answering questions concerning the nexus between contributions and preferential treatment. That takes preparation,consideration and consultation. None of that was on display here.
Instead, it was quite entertaining to see them try to top each other to prove which one of them despised and hated contributions the most.
Dan Hill practices criminal defense and has been licensed less than 8 years… How is this guy qualified to take on that complex litigation? And why is he even being considered by city council? Something stinks.
I was thinking the same thing and wondering if he knows someone high up. He could also learn the law if he doesn't know that type of law as could any attorney…
Maybe he was the only lawyer who would take that deal with the city.
This comment has been removed by the author.
He represented Ammon Bundy. He is in with the Michele Fiore and Victoria Seaman crowd. That is how he was selected.
He is not. That's idiotic. Just because an attorney represents someone (especially in a criminal defense case) does mean they adopt that person's bizarre political beliefs.
*does not
It does not mean you adopt their beliefs; however it can mean that you are a darling to people who have adopted those beliefs.
11:57–it's always difficult for judicial candidates to address questions concerning the role contributions play in these races. And this becomes even more amplified on account that the media, and a certain percentage of the public as well, realize that those who contribute are primarily attorneys who practice in such court.
But as difficult as it is, skilled campaigners learn to straddle the fence. They, in the broadest of terms, when confronted with this question, will indicate they will always be fair and impartial and are not affected by anything except what occurs in the case itself. They will then try to avoid elaborating further, and will then try to segue into other areas.
The mistake made here is that these candidates got a little too specific, and went well beyond some blanket statement of impartiality. The one candidate,quite unwisely in my view, personalized the issue and drew upon past experience and lamented past situations when judges seemed too chummy to the opposing side, who also presumably contributed. This seemed to suggest a campaign philosophy of "Please don't taint and compromise me by giving me any money", while a generic declaration of being impartial on all cases would have sufficed.
And one of the other candidates in the race did no better, and also seemed to suggest the inherent tainting evils of monetary contributions in judicial races.
Unlike 11:57, I can't assume they were pandering. Perhaps one or both of them believe these representations to varying degrees. But neither was a politically savvy response.
For the one candidate, with no website and seemingly few resources, it may not matter too much. For the other attorney, who apparently lists a veritable "Who's Who" of Family Court litigators as supporters, his response, on such issue, needs some work–such as speak in a conclusory generality concerning a commitment to fairness and impartiality, and avoid too many details.
This is not the time or place for nuance or personal anecdotes.
11:57 here.1:30 is right in that I can't know how sincere they were or were not.
I will assume they were sincere,but still,the answers need some work.
Whatthey both said was true, and I certainly agree with it, and I assume most other people would as well.
But these candidates, in order to survive the primary,presumably need contributions. So,that said, it's always critical for them, and all candidates, to remember which side their bread is buttered on.
What? “Every Nevadan is going to have to go without something as a result of this,” Sisolak said in an interview with the Sun, “and that’s just the way it is.”
Wait, I thought all the union members, especially the state employees, are making full salary and benefits while I have no income. Is that right? Did I miss something? So, Governor, please don't say "every" Nevadan.
Check the news…some state employees have been laid off. This sucks for everybody.
Be patient. More government layoffs will happen around or after fiscal year end.
Like which specific state agency employees?
All I could find were some part timers getting laid off. I imagine there must be more. The decline in tax revenue will be in the hundreds of millions. I hope PERS stays intact.
I am sure it won't.
Most that I have seen is part timers so far. Local govt parks & rec/after school programs have been gutted and other temp labor fillings have stopped. Full timers will follow with the new fiscal year budgets in July (and once the two month lag in tax revenues starts hitting later this month and in June). Probably a combination of layoffs and wide scale pay cuts/furloughs. So yeah OP, almost all full time govt employees still have their job right now at full salary. But nobody will have that full salary in a month or two and many will be laid off. So quit yer bitchin.
Some government employees have already been furloughed, albeit in a manner that is sub silentio and has not made the news.
6:07 here again. At "Wait, I thought all the union members, especially the state employees, are making full salary and benefits while I have no income. Is that right? Did I miss something? So, Governor, please don't say "every" Nevadan." Yes, I am talking about government UNION workers having been furloughed.
Is it just me or did Sisolak's phrase "the new normal" make anyone else sick to their stomach.
Phil Mickelson is a rat.
Phil Mickelson is FIGJAM.
Reports are coming in that the US death rate will double by August, and assholes are hoaxers and telling people not to wear masks. Fuck you!
Obviously that won't happen, because Dear Leader is winding down the coronavirus task force. Clearly, he wouldn't do something that, if not active malfeasance, would be at least gross negligence, if he'd received credible intelligence of a viral threat, right?