Chief Justice James Hardesty says fewer traffic tickets being issued is resulting in a financial crisis for the Nevada Supreme Court. Note that the article doesn’t say anything about the Court of Appeals which is now also impacting the Supreme Court’s budget. [RJ]
Sad that Uber isn’t operating in Nevada right now? Don’t be! The Nevada Taxicab Authority is finally rolling out “Ride Genie” and it’s ridiculous fees so you can hail one of just 85 cabs with a licensed cab driver anywhere in the valley. [8NewsNow]
Did you want to see the FBI’s press release about the conviction of a Las Vegas attorney in the HOA scandal? [FBI.gov]
I have said it before, and I will say it again: traffic laws exist to enrich the machine. Sure, there's a nice, fuzzy overlay of "protecting" the public, but that's Tammany Hall bullshit for the masses. The fat pigs on motorcycles are not cops dedicated to protecting life, liberty and property. Nope, they are the opposite. Here to deprive you of your property, then your liberty if you don't pay and, finally, if you resist, your life.
Guest
Anonymous
March 23, 2015 4:49 pm
Prime example: City of Ferguson and its Municipal Court.
Prime example: just about any Muni Court in the US. I've had the Las Vegas Muni Court refuse to drop admin fees on insurance violations, even when they are prohibited by statute from imposing any kind of penalty if proof of insurance is provided.
Guest
Anonymous
March 23, 2015 5:02 pm
Pardon me if I don't weep for Jim Hardesty and his poor branch of government. Nevada's judges are overpaid and the courts have entirely too many people milling about, trying to look busy, and calling themselves employees. The number of unnecessary people working at the courthouse is astounding. The courts could run just fine by getting rid of half of their employees and making the other half actually do some work once in a while. The State could save an incredible amount of money just by getting rid of its highly-compensated law clerks. I mean, why can't judges do their own legal research?
You are a fucking moron. Why isn't every nail driven by a Master Carpenter? Why don't the banks employ accountants as tellers? Why the hell would you want someone making $80/hr to be doing work that a clerk can do at $25? Wouldn't you rather the higher-paid worker do things the lower-paid clerk can't?
That is over one third of a million dollars in salary per department per year, plus benefits. There are over 50 district court departments in Clark County, then there are muni courts and various justice courts. Then there are nine judicial districts. Plus courthouse marshalls at the courthouse entry and information booth people, not to mention all of the admins. at master calendar and jury services. And then we get to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. That's alot of millions in operations dollars, not mention office equipment and downtown parking spaces! No way they could ever write enough traffic tickets to pay for that. Maybe they should implement $10 lottery scratcher tickets with all the popular judges' faces on them, and using the millions of dollars in revenue to pay for the courts?
No, 10:09, you are a fucking moron. The point was that judges should do the work themselves in addition to whatever it is they do on the bench. Law clerks who are paid $65,000 per year and receive state-paid benefits are a luxury the state obviously cannot afford.
My guess, you've spent your entire career in the public sector. Either that or you just don't get it.
Hey, hold on a second. I was a law clerk and rendered services far more valuable than my meager wages and seriously killer benefits. Pish posh. Law clerks are the elves that make Santa's gifts of justice possible.
March 23, 2015 at 10:02 AM – With all due respect I would argue that judges are significantly underpaid. Looking at the compensation of the most skilled legal partners in the private sectors, there is a clear incentive to offer a higher wage to attract the best Las Vegas has to offer. I don't have first hand knowldge of the work load of clerical personnel at the RJC so I won;t comment on that.
March 23, 2015 at 10:09 AM – I concur.
March 23, 2015 at 11:06 AM & March 23, 2015 at 3:07 PM – Again I can't really speak to the criminal bench, but civil law is unquestionably complex and ever more so each year. I don't see any difference between a judge having a law clerk than I see a partner having an associate.
March 23, 2015 at 12:44 PM – I suggest that your figures may be at the high end of the scale. The Marshal's wage you indicate is definitely on the high end. Starting wage is 38.6K.
You think the State and the County has the money to sustain paying these overinflated salaries and retirement benefits? You must not be good at math. Stavros is taking in north of $140k a year in pension alone. I think my self-funded retirement is in better than PERS.
Each Supreme Court Justice makes 207,000 plus 65,000 in benefits, for a total of 272,000 per year. A JEA makes about 58,000 plus 29,000 in benefits for about 87,000 per year. Then there are the law clerks and IT people. The Supremes jumped 35,000 in base salaries in between 2009 and 2010. Are they looking for another healthy jump this time around too, since they have all been maxed out for a few years?
Guest
Anonymous
March 23, 2015 5:26 pm
I'm just amazed that no one in our esteemed legislature is asking the difficult question:
Wasn't the NV Supreme Court operating at a surplus until the idea for the Court of Appeals came along?
The political sleight of hand on this one is amazing. The Supremes wanted a Court of Appeals and knew that the legislature would never fund it, so they used their surplus to create it and, in so doing, made themselves broke. Now, they're at the legislature saying that they need money to operate, knowing full well that they'll likely get it because no politician wants the Supreme Court to shut down.
They went into 2015 expecting 2014 would show a 3% drop in revenue. They got a 10% drop. Even with a revenue-neutral CoA, that's a hard pill to swallow.
It is very clever, indeed. And interestingly, by statute (NRS 2.010) the creation of a court of appeals eliminates two seats (and their staff) on the Supreme Court (it would apply to Justices Douglas and Saitta but they are permitted to serve out the remainder of their terms, until 2018). So in theory we should be able to be revenue neutral with operating costs.
And, I'll bet the Supreme Court will be back at the next legislative session asking to keep all seven justices.
OMG, I never noticed this! So does that mean that when the next two SC justices' terms expire, they won't be replaced? So the COA only added one net judge, not three, to help the SC with their caseload?!
Right, that is what is supposed to happen. When AB 343 was passed in 1997, it was a bill to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 5 to 7. The argument was that the Court was so overloaded that they needed additional justices to handle the caseload. But the compromise was that if a court of appeals was ever enacted into law, then the last two seats would be abolished. The last two (additional) seats were initially filled by Myron Leavitt (who was succeeded by Douglas) and Nancy Becker (who lost to Nancy Saitta). Both of those seats are supposed to expire at the end of their terms. I believe the SC is totally aware those seats are slated to expire. Which is why the traffic ticket revenue argument is so clever and why we should expect them to come back and ask for more revenue to keep those two seats in the next session.
Why would the two seats remain in tact until the end of the term? The statute specifically indicates that it is effective on the date that the voters approve a constitutional amendment establishing an intermediate court of appeals. The language of the statute then specifically states that the Supreme Court shall consist of a chief judge and four justices. The plain language seems to suggest that effective the amendment, this Supreme Court shall look like this. It doesn't say it will look like this when their term expires.
AB 343 (1997) Section 9(2) says, "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1, the additional justices whose positions are abolished by the establishment of an intermediate court of appeals must be permitted to serve the remainder of the terms to which they were elected. At the end of those terms, the positions of the additional justices must be abolished, along with the positions of any staff hired directly to support the additional justices."
It's an interesting issue. The plain language of the statute says that right now, the Supreme Court consists of five justices. But there's language, not in the statute, but in the bill that became law, that says that the two displaced justices continue to serve out their terms. Could that be construed to mean that they continue to receive their salary, but are no longer members of the Supreme Court? I don't know. I wonder if there's law about a conflict between the language in the bill that's not a part of the statute and the actual statutory language?
You can see victims of the system every day downtown. We privileged members of the upper middle class do not realize how many people are just one paycheck from the streets…and having some doughnut hog write a bullshit ticket with fines equaling two weeks of wages can ruin your life. Meanwhile, the fascistpigtaxcollectorfucker is looking forward to early retirement at full pay and health benefits for life. It's outrageous.
On the street that leads to my humble abode the speed limit goes from 45 to 35 to 25 within a mile — and there is nothing about the street that would suggest why. Only the sharpest eagle eyes would catch the modest, partially hidden signs indicating the change. That, and the fat pig on a cycle that is there at least once every 10 days handing out tickets galore.
Imagine Molly maid driving to clean my home, obeying the common sense 45 mile an hour speed limit and then – bam! – ticketed for going 20 over. Poof, two weeks of wages gone. Just like that. Heaven forbid she fails to pay. Warrant. Jail. More fines. Lost wages and maybe lost job.
So, no, how about opening your eyes and realizing that if everyone suddenly "obeyed" idiotic traffic rules implemented by demented bureaucrats working at the behest of sociopathic politicians doing the bidding of greedy corporatists, then they would change the rules. Two hands on wheel, no looking left when driving in left lane, or failing to genuflect when passing City Hall, etc. It's about the money (and power). That's it.
Maybe fines should be based on one's annual income. I read online that in certain European countries traffic fines are determined by the annual income of the offender.
A plucky law student friend of mine tried to contest a ticket by arguing that traffic fines were a violation of the U.S. Constitution because they were disproportionately punitive on the poor. Yeah, that argument didn't go so well.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: traffic laws exist to enrich the machine. Sure, there's a nice, fuzzy overlay of "protecting" the public, but that's Tammany Hall bullshit for the masses. The fat pigs on motorcycles are not cops dedicated to protecting life, liberty and property. Nope, they are the opposite. Here to deprive you of your property, then your liberty if you don't pay and, finally, if you resist, your life.
Prime example: City of Ferguson and its Municipal Court.
Prime example: just about any Muni Court in the US. I've had the Las Vegas Muni Court refuse to drop admin fees on insurance violations, even when they are prohibited by statute from imposing any kind of penalty if proof of insurance is provided.
Pardon me if I don't weep for Jim Hardesty and his poor branch of government. Nevada's judges are overpaid and the courts have entirely too many people milling about, trying to look busy, and calling themselves employees. The number of unnecessary people working at the courthouse is astounding. The courts could run just fine by getting rid of half of their employees and making the other half actually do some work once in a while. The State could save an incredible amount of money just by getting rid of its highly-compensated law clerks. I mean, why can't judges do their own legal research?
You are a fucking moron. Why isn't every nail driven by a Master Carpenter? Why don't the banks employ accountants as tellers? Why the hell would you want someone making $80/hr to be doing work that a clerk can do at $25? Wouldn't you rather the higher-paid worker do things the lower-paid clerk can't?
Comparative Advantage
Civil judges absolutely need law clerks. Criminal law judges less so. You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to master criminal law & procedure.
Judge $160,000
JEA 65,000
Recorder 60,000
Ct. Clerk 60,000
Marshall 60,000
Law Clerk 55,000
That is over one third of a million dollars in salary per department per year, plus benefits. There are over 50 district court departments in Clark County, then there are muni courts and various justice courts. Then there are nine judicial districts. Plus courthouse marshalls at the courthouse entry and information booth people, not to mention all of the admins. at master calendar and jury services. And then we get to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. That's alot of millions in operations dollars, not mention office equipment and downtown parking spaces! No way they could ever write enough traffic tickets to pay for that. Maybe they should implement $10 lottery scratcher tickets with all the popular judges' faces on them, and using the millions of dollars in revenue to pay for the courts?
Spoken like a true civil douche.
No, 10:09, you are a fucking moron. The point was that judges should do the work themselves in addition to whatever it is they do on the bench. Law clerks who are paid $65,000 per year and receive state-paid benefits are a luxury the state obviously cannot afford.
My guess, you've spent your entire career in the public sector. Either that or you just don't get it.
Hey, hold on a second. I was a law clerk and rendered services far more valuable than my meager wages and seriously killer benefits. Pish posh. Law clerks are the elves that make Santa's gifts of justice possible.
March 23, 2015 at 10:02 AM – With all due respect I would argue that judges are significantly underpaid. Looking at the compensation of the most skilled legal partners in the private sectors, there is a clear incentive to offer a higher wage to attract the best Las Vegas has to offer. I don't have first hand knowldge of the work load of clerical personnel at the RJC so I won;t comment on that.
March 23, 2015 at 10:09 AM – I concur.
March 23, 2015 at 11:06 AM & March 23, 2015 at 3:07 PM – Again I can't really speak to the criminal bench, but civil law is unquestionably complex and ever more so each year. I don't see any difference between a judge having a law clerk than I see a partner having an associate.
March 23, 2015 at 12:44 PM – I suggest that your figures may be at the high end of the scale. The Marshal's wage you indicate is definitely on the high end. Starting wage is 38.6K.
You think the State and the County has the money to sustain paying these overinflated salaries and retirement benefits? You must not be good at math. Stavros is taking in north of $140k a year in pension alone. I think my self-funded retirement is in better than PERS.
shape
Each Supreme Court Justice makes 207,000 plus 65,000 in benefits, for a total of 272,000 per year. A JEA makes about 58,000 plus 29,000 in benefits for about 87,000 per year. Then there are the law clerks and IT people. The Supremes jumped 35,000 in base salaries in between 2009 and 2010. Are they looking for another healthy jump this time around too, since they have all been maxed out for a few years?
I'm just amazed that no one in our esteemed legislature is asking the difficult question:
Wasn't the NV Supreme Court operating at a surplus until the idea for the Court of Appeals came along?
The political sleight of hand on this one is amazing. The Supremes wanted a Court of Appeals and knew that the legislature would never fund it, so they used their surplus to create it and, in so doing, made themselves broke. Now, they're at the legislature saying that they need money to operate, knowing full well that they'll likely get it because no politician wants the Supreme Court to shut down.
Man — you gotta give it to them. That's clever.
They went into 2015 expecting 2014 would show a 3% drop in revenue. They got a 10% drop. Even with a revenue-neutral CoA, that's a hard pill to swallow.
It is very clever, indeed. And interestingly, by statute (NRS 2.010) the creation of a court of appeals eliminates two seats (and their staff) on the Supreme Court (it would apply to Justices Douglas and Saitta but they are permitted to serve out the remainder of their terms, until 2018). So in theory we should be able to be revenue neutral with operating costs.
And, I'll bet the Supreme Court will be back at the next legislative session asking to keep all seven justices.
NRS 2.010 is amazing–it was passed in 1997. Is the Supreme Court aware that they advocated themselves out of a job?
OMG, I never noticed this! So does that mean that when the next two SC justices' terms expire, they won't be replaced? So the COA only added one net judge, not three, to help the SC with their caseload?!
Right, that is what is supposed to happen. When AB 343 was passed in 1997, it was a bill to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 5 to 7. The argument was that the Court was so overloaded that they needed additional justices to handle the caseload. But the compromise was that if a court of appeals was ever enacted into law, then the last two seats would be abolished. The last two (additional) seats were initially filled by Myron Leavitt (who was succeeded by Douglas) and Nancy Becker (who lost to Nancy Saitta). Both of those seats are supposed to expire at the end of their terms. I believe the SC is totally aware those seats are slated to expire. Which is why the traffic ticket revenue argument is so clever and why we should expect them to come back and ask for more revenue to keep those two seats in the next session.
Why would the two seats remain in tact until the end of the term? The statute specifically indicates that it is effective on the date that the voters approve a constitutional amendment establishing an intermediate court of appeals. The language of the statute then specifically states that the Supreme Court shall consist of a chief judge and four justices. The plain language seems to suggest that effective the amendment, this Supreme Court shall look like this. It doesn't say it will look like this when their term expires.
AB 343 (1997) Section 9(2) says, "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1, the additional justices whose positions are abolished by the establishment of an intermediate court of appeals must be permitted to serve the remainder of the terms to which they were elected. At the end of those terms, the positions of the additional justices must be abolished, along with the positions of any staff hired directly to support the additional justices."
It's an interesting issue. The plain language of the statute says that right now, the Supreme Court consists of five justices. But there's language, not in the statute, but in the bill that became law, that says that the two displaced justices continue to serve out their terms. Could that be construed to mean that they continue to receive their salary, but are no longer members of the Supreme Court? I don't know. I wonder if there's law about a conflict between the language in the bill that's not a part of the statute and the actual statutory language?
The only way to make sure Hardesty does not muck up more of Nevada legal system is to not re-elect him!!!!!!!
Hey, guess what, 3/23 @ 1:47 – the newspapers just realized that. The Sun is saying the Nevada Appeal "broke" the story.
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/apr/17/new-appeals-court-could-cost-nevada-supreme-court-/
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/government/15906777-113/nevada-supreme-court-could-eventually-shrink
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver's recent segment on Municipal Violations — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
Good stuff! I wonder how much Goldfield, Nevada generates of its budget from court fines…2000%?
and Searchlight.
#shutdownthefuckbarrel!!!!
You can see victims of the system every day downtown. We privileged members of the upper middle class do not realize how many people are just one paycheck from the streets…and having some doughnut hog write a bullshit ticket with fines equaling two weeks of wages can ruin your life. Meanwhile, the fascistpigtaxcollectorfucker is looking forward to early retirement at full pay and health benefits for life. It's outrageous.
Mmm. How about not speeding if you can't afford it?
On the street that leads to my humble abode the speed limit goes from 45 to 35 to 25 within a mile — and there is nothing about the street that would suggest why. Only the sharpest eagle eyes would catch the modest, partially hidden signs indicating the change. That, and the fat pig on a cycle that is there at least once every 10 days handing out tickets galore.
Imagine Molly maid driving to clean my home, obeying the common sense 45 mile an hour speed limit and then – bam! – ticketed for going 20 over. Poof, two weeks of wages gone. Just like that. Heaven forbid she fails to pay. Warrant. Jail. More fines. Lost wages and maybe lost job.
So, no, how about opening your eyes and realizing that if everyone suddenly "obeyed" idiotic traffic rules implemented by demented bureaucrats working at the behest of sociopathic politicians doing the bidding of greedy corporatists, then they would change the rules. Two hands on wheel, no looking left when driving in left lane, or failing to genuflect when passing City Hall, etc. It's about the money (and power). That's it.
Maybe fines should be based on one's annual income. I read online that in certain European countries traffic fines are determined by the annual income of the offender.
@11:51 I'm guessing you live in the Anthem area? What a disaster Via Inspirada/Bicentennial is, if that's what you're referring to.
A plucky law student friend of mine tried to contest a ticket by arguing that traffic fines were a violation of the U.S. Constitution because they were disproportionately punitive on the poor. Yeah, that argument didn't go so well.
LOL
Did Prince & Keating end their relationship?
No.
John Keating is way nicer than Prince.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dennis Prince is leaving to join Eglet. Word on the street is most associates are staying with Keating.
wrong. They were already partners and it did not work.