- Quickdraw McLaw
- 99 Comments
- 716 Views
As we are all now painfully aware, a lot can happen in a short span of time. Think back to a year ago when courts were still shut down for the most part and bars and churches were rallying against the governor’s Covid orders as the nation prepared for an upcoming presidential election. Compare that to where we are today and consider whether you could have predicted where we are now?
- Housing prices in Vegas are up 20% over a year ago and the federal moratorium is just about to end. What are your predictions on the housing market?
- Vaccines are now widely available here now, but covid numbers are going up in Nevada as new variants, which may or may not be vaccine resistant, begin to make the headlines. What are your predictions regarding the pandemic? Gallup says 3 in 10 Americans think the pandemic is over. Are we done with it? Will there be another wave this fall? Will there be more lockdowns and closures?
- Next year is a gubernatorial election year in Nevada–already a handful of Republican hopefuls have indicated their intention to run. Will any of them actually be on the ballot in the fall of 2022 or will someone else emerge?
- Law firms, some with a little government help, have seemed to emerge from the pandemic in good shape. Will they stay that way? Will there be any firms that close up shop in the next year?
- What about judges? We just had a judicial election, but will there be any sudden retirements or resignations from the bench?
- What changes from the pandemic will last? Will casual wear in law offices be the new norm? Will Zoom hearings continue to be an acceptable way to practice law? Will you be able to go another year without setting foot in an actual courtroom?
What do you think is going to happen over the course of the next year?
I predict we are stuck with corona viruses of one sort or another because people are too dumb to get vaccinated. The anti-vaxxers will basically serve as incubators for new variants. We're all gonna die.
I also predict there are going to be a whole lot of new judges getting overturned by the supreme court.
The housing market is a scam and we are overdue for another crash. We don't have the industry or employment numbers to justify the current numbers.
I'm worried we *won't* see a crash. It's not like the 2000's when they were handing out mortgages to everyone who couldn't afford one.
Prices keep going up but investors are paying cash and just renting. Eventually it'll top out, but I don't think we'll see a crash.
@9:44 you need to turn off the news, the doomsday message being spread is a lie. It has been 16 months since the quarantine began and somehow the world hasn't ended. You're going to be ok.
Now, the point about the housing market? I think you're spot on.
I am by no means a real estate expert….But I assume part of the reason the market is so crazy right now is bc there is hardly any inventory…. I'm sure part of the reason there is hardly any inventory is due to the moratorium, no? Once property owners can start evicting people, inventory (including foreclosures) will go way up, and prices way down….or am I totally off base here?
The mRNA vaccines were never meant to stop the spread of sars cov 2. If you look closely at the claims made, these vaccines are meant to reduce symptoms only. So, it really doesn't matter whether or not people get the vaccine. Just be happy you have it and are protected against the over-hyped virus.
My semi-informed lay opinion is that the increase in housing prices is being driven more by investors than by reckless mortgage underwriting. Which doesn't mean a crash won't happen of course.
@944 has a few issues. He/she/they are shaming and name calling out the people declining to get the mRna vaccine, but, clearly has been vaccinated and therefore has nothing to worry about. Including the total lack of logic and credibility.
Whether to get the vaccine or not is a personal decision regarding risk management. We make choices every minute of every day about our risk tolerance. I believe that my chances of dying from covid is near zero. I believe that may chances of having permanent side effects from the vaccine is near zero. Based on my personal views on my risk tolerance, I chose to be vaccinated so that I can have more freedom in not having to wear a mask in most situations and in lowering the odds that I either will get covid or lessening any symptoms. I can be totally wrong about this because I am no expert and cannot predict the future. But it is was my own choice and I am not going to criticize anyone else when they make their own decisions regarding the management of their risk management.
@10:26 – thank you for being an adult, it's such a foreign concept nowadays to accept that other people's viewpoints may differ
Covid – annual booster shots
Zoom – love it
Casual wear – A mistake and a sure way for clients to think legal advice should be the same price as that of an Apple genius.
Real Estate – Las Vegas has had repeated cycles of boom-bust. Only a fool would believe that there will continued good times. The Fed cannot keep interest rates artificially low. Rising mortgage interest will reduce the numbers of those who can qualify.
Stock Market – see above, steep down turn, maybe recession in 2022.
The housing explosion is being fed by 2% borrowing rates and a moratorium under which the government will pay rent for citizens. It is effectively free money so long as you can get a lender to write the loan. Will there be a crash? Potentially should inflationary pressures destroy the free money and then real buyers are frozen out of the market.
@1026 APPLAUSE!!! Freedom of choice (and lack of ensuing shame and judgment therefor) is seeming to go the way of the Dodo bird.
Your opinion about free choice doesn't matter when it comes to an airborne virus. By not getting vaccinated or clinging to some nonsense about freedom and choice, you're just spreading the virus. You might survive it and the person you infect might survive it, but their grandma won't, their mom won't, their kid won't. Not getting vaccinated is the equivalent of telling your entire community to fuck off and you don't care about them.
Only in America do we think our opinions and feelings matter more then science.
@1246
If you believe the Pharmaceutical Industry, Fauci, Bidan and the CDC bureaucracy as "science" as opposed to actual scientists and doctors, you my friend are the problem. Luckily, YOUR opinion and feelings are irrelevant to me until you seek your information from someone unbiased, unpurchased and objective.
1:23- I am not 12:46 but please do share who these "unbiased, unpurchased and objective" sources are who believe that there is no science and no actual scientists and doctors who are attesting to the airborne nature of the virus.
How dare you ask for specifics 1:35. dO YOuR reSeARcH!
@1246 – I believe the 'science' behind these shots even stated at the beginning that they were to mitigate the symptoms, but did not prevent transmission. So, vaccinated people are also liable for killing grandma, in your words, and can give it to their unvaccinated children, just as easily as the unvaccinated can.
Also, because this really gets me going, are immunocompromised people or cancer patients who can't get vaxxed for health reasons selfish anti-vaxxers who are ruining society and don't care about others? Honestly asking, for a friend.
1:44, they never said the vaccine would prevent transmission. But they absolutely said it'll decrease transmission because if you get infected you can knock it down quickly instead of carrying around the virus at high levels for a couple weeks.
Oooooor, you can just get prescribed Ivermectin or HCQ and Azithromycin and VIOLA cured!! No experimental NON-FDA Approved vaccine needed, antibodies doin' their job.
*Don't fact check me with some CNN Baloney. The Z-pak / Ivermectin cured 3 members of my family.
I'm not getting the vaccine. It's my personal choice. The people screaming for me to get the vaccine are the same people saying that I have no right to complain about a woman getting an abortion. Even though that decision kills a living person. They yell "My body. My choice." Well, this is my body and my choice. There's over 8 billion people on this earth. The earth can definitely use a little culling of the population which, if we are to believe the climate change crowd, would be a good thing as it would reduce the carbon footprints of all those killed by covid. If any of Biden's gestapo come to my door to try to sell me on getting the "jab" I will take great pleasure in slamming the door in their faces.
Cool. Which med school did you attend again?
Jesus Christ. Z pak is an antibiotic. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic. Neither do anything against viruses you no-selling waste of space.
If you can force me to take a vaccine, then I can force you to have the baby you want to abort.
@216. Yikes. And yet, it works to kill COVID!! Thanks doc. Its a miracle.
@2:02– Would you let me fact check you with The Lancet? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00461-X/fulltext
For anyone who is open minded and tired of being played, a good place to start is the Children's Health Defense Fund. Robert Kennedy Jr. is hero. Papa is proud.
@ 2:21 My body my choice..
Aborting is in fact a personal decision. Right or wrong, it does not affect or kill multitudes. A vaccine is public health issue.
But as I have said before, you can't fix stupid, so letting nature take its course to thin out stupid from the herd may be best in the long run.
I loved Bobby Sr. Bobby Jr. On the other hand, is an ignorant, self-entitled schmuck.
5:25, my great fear is that those who took the experimental shot with zero track record of success might well be thinned out. I will miss you when you are gone.
The government will conceal the data as long as it can (e.g., if two individuals appear to die of the exact same respiratory symptoms, the current rule is the one who had the shot died of a lung infection and the one without the shot died of Covid, so there), but when you suddenly realize 1/3 of your neighbors, colleagues, family members, and so on are gone, all heck will break loose. Hug your family and keep close to your Church.
Now, 6:34, please remember your manners.
Your comment was not very nice.
The comment was admittedly very, very true, but not very nice.
@5:25 p.m. Good. I hope the fact that I don't get the vaccine causes you or someone you love to be culled from existence. Also, abortion does kill multitudes.
Rumor has it that Snell, Ballard, and Brownstein all upped the starting salary for 1st years. I think the base is 160 now
Bump this. Any insight?
I call BS on that. @948. Stop trying to get your firm to raise your salary to $160k. You instead should get back to work.
Can confirm Snell and Ballard increased starting salaries significantly in recent days
Brownstein definitely raised their starting salary, too.
What about the other big law firms, Lewis and Roca, Fox Rothschild, Greenberg Traurig and Holland and Hart? We need to have a pay blog post tomorrow to get these issues brought out.
And are any of these "elite" firms taking PPP like Eglet?
Only ALL of them
No pay for you. Now get back to work.
I predict that one of Biden's Vaccine Enforcement Agents will turn up dead in the Las Vegas Wash, and Pelosi will use that as justification to open up a Capital Police field office at Allegiant Stadium.
Trust The Plan.
Hold The Line!
#MAGA
I hope to never again have to go to RJC for any routine hearings. BlueJeans all the way!
This 100%
Can we go more than 100%?
Does anyone else feel like COVID was used as a political tool to oust an unpopular politician? Like I hate Trump as much as the next guy, and Biden seems like a much more decent human. But the reaction to COVID under the two administrations seems like a rorschach – people see what they want to see.
Trump's handling of the epidemic played a role, yes, but was only part of the reason why he lost. Any hypothetical President, D or R, who would have shunted science under the bus and went after scientists like they were wackos would have lost many points in the polls.
It was more along the line of Trump Trump Trump always having to be number #1 – even with the virus around. He couldn't stand how the virus and all the discussion around it could have more press time than him, and he acted accordingly.
Trump loses popular vote with or without COVID, don't get how you think this was the lever.
All three of you all are dreaming. If you don't see the evidence of wholesale fraud that took place (cases still working though the courts, look it up cause MSM wont tell you) and the happenings that will likely correct that. Your head is in the sand. The "Pandemic" was created and used solely to steal the election and to control the masses.
12:32,
Please, tell us more about Law v. Whitmer is really a victory that proved fraud in Nevada, despite getting slapped down 6-0 by NSC.
Wow. If 12:32 is an atty, he/she's a candidate for Supreme Court Rule 117.
12:08 here. I hate to admit this because 12:32 is probably wearing a tinfoil hat, but I think 12:32 is close to right. I live in a lib city and until November 2020, going around without a mask was shunned as homicidal. As soon as Trump was out, though, masks were gone. Same with journalism coverage. It went from "Oh my God there's 3 people at Barrett's swearing in without masks, the end is near" to me seeing high-ranking dems on TV every day without a mask. The narrative seems totally malleable depending on what political party the person you're talking to belongs to. In the end, I'm happy Trump is out, so I guess I shouldn't care. But I also feel like I've been manipulated to further someone else's agenda.
1232 here. Nevada is not even close to the only jurisdiction and the NSC is far from the decider here. THERE ARE ACTUAL COURT CASES progressing in the USA, (heaven forbid, litigation taking its sweet time) but keep watching Rachel Maddow for your news, amigo.
1245 Tinfoil hat or no, thanks for your actual objectivity. I guess, your in no danger of being declared incompetent. (Again, the name callers and shame throwers dominate). Its nice to see someone who sees what is happening and makes a decision, instead of just sticking to the talking points from MSNBC.
12:45, correlation, not causation. Masks started to go away because numbers plummeted, mainly because a significant portion of the population was getting vaccinated. Maybe not to herd immunity levels, but enough that transmission slows significantly.
To be fair, I'm sure there was some let up because Trump was out, but that's more a reflection of Trump being an absolute horse in a hospital as opposed to the other political party winning the election. Trump demanded (and received) so much of our day to day attention because he was a horse in a hospital and did ridiculous things that demanded attention. Once he was gone I think there was a collective sigh of relief from 60% of the population who could stop cringewatching the news everyday. So yeah, I'm sure the change in administration had a little to do with it, but you can't overlook the difference in vaccination rates and the fact that cases were orders of magnitude higher in the winter than they have been since April or so.
12:45- I appreciate the effort and objectivity but it is simply not factual. "As soon as Trump was out, though, masks were gone." Simply not true. Mask mandates were lifted by states months after Inauguration and only once positivity rates were down. Now that positivity rates with Delta variant are starting to climb, increased restrictions are back under discussion.
"Same with journalism coverage. It went from "Oh my God there's 3 people at Barrett's swearing in without masks, the end is near" to me seeing high-ranking dems on TV every day without a mask." Sure. Because vaccines have rolled out in the interim and those people are now vaccinated. That is the way science works. A better argument would be to state that Trump and his administration are not getting enough credit for the vaccine being developed while they were at the wheel and that the loosening we are seeing today is due in large part to their work. The counterargument is that the success we are seeing is in due to the administration but in spite of Trump himself.
You have indicated that you believe that the opinions are malleable based upon party. I am an (R) and a conservative (R) at that. But I agree with you that I'm happy Trump is out. There is no malleability when it comes to facts and evidence.
12:08 here. COVID was worse in January 2021 than it was at any time during the Trump presidency, but you wouldn't know it. Schools were opening, stores were opening, masks were off or coming off. Now there's a delta variant, but again schools are open, stores are opening, etc. So look, I'd agree that there might be a gradual shift based on the vaccine, but that alone doesn't account for what has happened around me.
I sometimes miss the horse in the hospital.
"When it comes to elites, don't attribute to incompetence what can be explained by malevolence." "The track record of the ruling class in “stopping the spread” could not be any worse. The vast majority of the problems and the corresponding “solutions” to these problems have no basis in science and/or reason. Dig deep enough into these issues and you’ll find yourself scrambling to find how exactly the “expert” class came to adopt these supposed virus defeating strategies. Sometimes, the “consensus” comes from shoddy academic modeling or recommendations from totalitarian regimes. Other times, “The Science” comes from politically correct, woke ideologues in “elite” academic institutions who don’t even have as much as a junk model to base their findings on. https://dossier.substack.com/p/the-covid-19-era-taught-us-dont-trust
My body, my choice. No vaccine. No mask.
Is 4:31 going for a blackout on his NewsMax BINGO board? Easily got 22 out of 24 squares.
Re 4:33: Seriously and not just being a troll: Can you ever envision a circumstance in which the Government can mandate vaccines or a mask? Can you ever envision a circumstance in which the Government can mandate military service? Can you ever envision a circumstance in which the Government can mandate emergency action, i.e. no camp fires because the forest is matchbox. Does a woman have the right to get an abortion?
Ok, 5:51, I will engage. Your question misses the mark. First, governments will do whatever they want. As Biden says, they have the F-15s and Nukes, so do as you are told, slave. So, I can envision very clearly. But for the shreds of liberty left thanks to a 200+ year-old document, we'd be toast, and I would be living in the woods, hiding from the Covid Gestapo.
Second, you presume the government knows something the citizenry does not. Here, in this case, the government worked triple overtime, in cahoots with Big Pharma and Big Tech, to suppress any dissenting thoughts and data — thus destroying science itself. Citizens naturally smelled a rat. Citizens used their own minds to weigh and balance the pros and cons, and many decided hell no to the experimental "vaccines."
So, can you imagine a circumstance where (boy, I hope you skipped history in school) the government would actively seek to kill and maim its own citizens? Can you imagine (gulp!) a situation where the government lied to its own citizens? You don't even have to go past the 20th century to know the answer. Go back further and you'll see that pattern repeat over and over again.
You know why blacks in particular are reluctant to get the experimental shots? Ever hear of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? How about the Swine Flu Vaccine fiasco? How about a train ride, some soup and a shower, Liebowitz?
Third, can you imagine anyone refusing a reasonable request upon being informed and allowed to investigate to confirm? My answer: no. Most people now realize that tobacco, sugar, and refined starches are responsible for most diseases, especially metabolic ones. (Notice how your beloved government still pushes sugar and refined starches to its trusting morbidly obese and docile TV-watching citizens.)
For those of us who have enjoyed the pleasure of litigating against governmental agencies over a long period of time, this much is self-evident: governments lie and conceal all the time, every day, in every possible way. I don't trust anything any governmental agency tells me. In fact, if they said it was raining, I'd go outside and check for myself. This Covid canard has stunk to high heaven from the very beginning.
The truth is out there.
Re 6:39: You just spouted more bs rhetoric. 5:51 asked a serious question. Your hyperbolic response indicates that you cannot imagine any such circumstances and just want to spin your version of the "facts." Your inability to be reasonable is confirmation that bipartinsanship – reasonableness is dead.
Of course there are circumstances in which the government could mandate vaccines. For example if there was airborne transmittable virus that killed 50% of those infected. Heck the government probably wouldn't even need to mandate in that circumstance and you would be first in line.
Of course there are circumstances in which the government could mandate military service. Would you show up with your AR if the boogerman invaded, or would you leave your friend Liebowitz to fend for himself?
Yes, I've heard of the Tuskegee experiment. Government bad. Have you heard of the eradication of polio and small-pox? Government good.
Nothing is black and white except to the fanatic.
@639 Bravo! And yet, when you rationally oppose the preferred narrative of government and the left, its dismissed, labeled as rhetoric, as opposed to an actual reasoned educated opinion. What @942 and others refuse to recognize is that the government lies to us and then tells the truth and they still parrot the lies as gospel.
Oh. And you're a fanatic too.
To borrow a principle from a previous poster, "My body, my choice. No vaccine, no mask". How dare we co-opt the hypocrisy of the left??
8:17– But here is the problem with what you and 6:39 stated: you offer no alternative evidence or facts. "[W]hen you rationally oppose the preferred narrative of government and the left, its dismissed, labeled as rhetoric, as opposed to an actual reasoned educated opinion." Arms of our government lie often, but that is not the question here. The issue is "Show me the evidence that the Government (or "Big Pharma" or whatever stalking horse is chosen) is lying here in this case in this circumstance. 6:39 is candid in saying that his/her position is reduced to effectively "Whatever the Government says, believe the opposite." That is not reasoned opinion based on evidence; that is kneejerk reactivity.
I am on the Right on most political issues and have a distrust and mistrust of Government larger than many/most. But I do generally trust upon adequate proof and evidence science, medicine and the goodwill of citizens. I am willing to review whatever evidence and reasoned facts are presented that in this case the government (or any of those groups) are lying. However the "Government said it and therefore it is not true" does not hold water.
The Truth is out there. Don't use Google. You might start with Robert Kennedy Jr.'s website. Another most excellent site is Mercola's.
And then people throw junk websites in like Mercola and Childrens Health Defense. The science that they quote is not science. CHD has cited studies that its authors have come out and stated that that is not what the studies said. Mercola is selling quackery products that he says fight COVID with no scientific basis.
@830
817 here. The problem with your logic is simple. The Vaxx-forcers on here and elsewhere don't want to see evidence. What 639 sets forth and I applauded was an OPINION. It wasnt put out there as anything else. The Vaxx-forcers DEMAND that everyone gets vaccinated and anyone who hesitates, hates humans. See name calling etc., above.
When 639 or myself expressed our opinion and what we have researched and decided for OURSELVES, we are lunatics, fanatics or heaven forbid Trumpists. We arent mad at ya'll for getting vaccinated, just dont shame or blame or malign me for making a decision for myself.
The evidence is out there. All one has to do to raise some questions (for themselves) is look at the CDC VAERS in order to raise some questions for oneself as to whether the risks outweigh the supposed rewards. As for me and my house…..no. But, ya'll can do what you want. I wont be mad.
9:23 says his authorities are better than the other guy's authorities. So what? Can we at least agree no one knows the long term effects of these injections. No one. Real vaccines go through 7-12 years of testing with control groups. Here, no control groups. Barely any testing. Hence, provisional approval, not full approval. Yet, we are supposed to take this experimental injection that only has provisional approval to stop the spread of a seasonal flu for which we have already developed herd immunity? That is pure madness.
Let's hope this all works out. I am never getting any of the injections. Big Pharma has lost all credibility. I eat whole foods, exercise daily, and get lots of sun. That's my plan.
I just hope that Kyle Rittenhouse gets acquitted and then sues the pants off every media outlet that tried to Covington-Catholic-Crucify him.
Why is today different from other days on this blog? I feel deprived. Why don't we have the daily, unflattering remarks, about Judge Forsberg, followed by a responsive post asking if the negative remarks about her are all from the same poster, or from several different aggrieved posters.
Answer(for those who care, which is admittedly almost no one) is that the posts are probably all from the same person, in that I doubt some isolated Family Court judge would generate that much universal animus(unless their last name starts with a P and thy recently retired).
Or she's just a very political person who reads the law blog and either comments or has someone close to her comment attacking anyone or any negative comment about her.
1:32,in general judges don't acknowledge demeanor problems(or other short comings, for that matter).
Attorneys in general,(and judges are even worse), tend to lack the humility or personal insight to accept criticism and admit shortcomings. Too often, humility, in our profession, is misinterpreted as weakness and lack of confidence. We simply have a very aggressive profession, that tends to attract aggressive people(or at least highly confident people with healthy-sized egos).
On the Judging The Judges Survey, over the years there have been judges who are widely criticized, in the survey results, for a harsh or angry demeanor. The reporter will then question the judge about this issue.
Not one judge has ever acknowledged that if the complaints about their demeanor are so wide-spread and severe, that such is an issue they need to work on.
Instead, they always, without exception, offer one or both of the following responses(clearly designed to deflect responsibility onto the complaining attorneys).
The judges either respond "I don't have a demeanor problem. I just don't tolerate b.s., and the attorneys don't like that.", or they respond, "I enforce the rules and requirements, and don't tolerate slip-shod, sloppy practices, and the attorneys resent me for it."
When the judges respond this way they seem unaware that they these responses suggest that their highly-rated colleagues must enjoy tolerating b.s., and never enforce the rules and requirements, and that is therefore why attorneys hold them in high esteem.
Funny enough. The vaunted and much hated on Doug Smith was very open in self- admitting that he was a "dick and hated lawyers" in general.
You might've hated him. But I loved him on the bench and off!!
1:25, I've gotten the sense that it is neither just one person, nor a whole group of people.
Instead, it seems like at least 2, and probably 3 people, who offer those posts, based on variances in grammar, spelling, diction, etc.
But even if just three separate attorneys see fit to single out a Family Court judge, on a public blog, as to demeanor issues, that may start to suggest a problem worthy of further inquiry.
Kind of like if you get a complaint about an employee, you may be inclined to give the employee the benefit of the doubt depending on the situation. But if a second, and then a third complaint arrives, from different people but based on the same subject matter or behavior, it starts to resonate more.
To me, she seems like a pretty solid judge(unlike some of the new group of 10 that just got elected), but there have been judges I have liked who most other attorneys did not like, and there have been judges I did not care to have my cases assigned to, who seemed to be held in high esteem by most attorneys.
So much of this is just based on subjective opinions and individual experiences.
I know for a fact it is not just a couple attorneys. Most people don't want to comment because they are worried about her figuring out who they are if they get too specific. She has a reputation for taking her dislike of attorneys out on litigants.
She does have her good moments, but she is not that good on the more nuanced points of law and when she loses her temper in court the screeching is unbearable. If I filled out the RJ poll today she would be very near the bottom.
So I just had a meeting with a DA team chief. Apparently Justice Hardesty ripped the DA's office's collective ass about trials. He told them that criminal trials have to go and he's going to be turning the screws on the District Court judges AND the DA's office to make sure they do. How is it okay for the judicial branch to dictate policy to the executive and essentially put it on the defense attorneys to not continue cases? I have such a problem with this on so many levels. How was the criminal defense bar not included on this meeting, how was it okay for the DA's office to have this meeting, and WTF is going on that we, DA's and defense bar collectively, have to clean up the judicial branch's decision/mess? I don't have the reputation as an attorney who continues trials, I've done at least 45-50 jury trials in ten years out on my own and I don't intend to change, but this is bullshit. I love Vegas, I love that this is a small town, but follow the fucking rules, this is not okay.
Just retire already Hardesty.
So a sitting Nevada Supreme Court Justice is forcing the DA's office to force defense attorneys to trial? Even assuming that was in any way enforceable, how precisely does he expect a prosecutor to force that? Start a jury trial without the defendant and his counsel? Tell the judge to ignore the defense's pleas that they'd be ineffective if they went to trial without being ready? Insane.
Justice Hardesty has been out of control for years. What ever happened to Nancy Becker's disciplinary action in which she was negotiating a high salary with the DA's office while hearing the DA's cases?
Maybe it was a warning that the courts are going to start dismissing criminal cases when the defendant is asserting his right to a speedy trial and is not getting one?
How is an appellate judge going to turn the screws of how trial courts control their dockets? Interdictions at the trial court levels? Allowing/Forcing litigants to run writs to the Supremes? The Nevada Supreme Court has stated time and again that absent express constitutional authority that it has no jurisdiction to control proceedings at the District Court level. Hardesty has never known limits on his powers and can shove his screws in the broad darkness that surrounds him.
How in the hell foes Hardestg have so much power? This Nevada Supreme Cour is out of control . too had judicial commission does not have a pair.
Hardesty was a bully when he was on the 2nd Judicial District bench. There's something wrong with this guy.
Hardesty is one of these guys who has an innate sense of self that is very paternalistic. I doubt he is even self aware of it. It's his job to keep everyone else in line, even if it isn't really his job.
I had a candid conversation with 3 EJDC judges who I like and respect during a legal conclave. At least amongst these three, Hardesty is reviled. A bully does not begin to describe his conduct and antics. He is a dictator in a judicial branch that is supposed to be impervious to such foibles. But judges are human and are willing to accede like anyone else to the loudest. He is not a good jurist. He is an even worse person according to these three judges.
Lombardo will be R nominee for governor. Hard to say what will pop up and whether Sisolak will be ousted or not. I'm leaning toward him being ousted.
I'm not a fan of Sisolak, but there was some RJ polling a few months ago that really surprised me. As I remember, most Nevadans approved of how he handled the pandemic (I don't share this view, and I am a pro-mask, pro-science person). I think a large part of whether Sisolak wins or not depends on how Trumpy the GOP candidate makes his campaign. Trumpism has never fared well in Nevada.
No confidence in Joey Knuckles from Reno getting the R nomination?
Sisolak's only chance is that the NV GOP nominates someone other than Lombardo. Lombardo has so much going in his favor. Credible "law and order" candidate. Seems able to hit the right-wing scaremongering talking points (e.g. "no CRT in schools") without going full Trumptard. Already been elected to office multiple times by Clark County, the jurisdiction that matters. A fair amount of the left dislikes Sisolak enough to sit this out rather than vote for him over a "moderate." Anybody who disapproves of how Lombardo runs Metro is probably too well-informed (and too invested in social justice) to ever vote Republican anyway.
Of course, this is the NV GOP, renowned for idiocy and self-sabotage, with a fetish for any candidate who is willing to say the quiet part out loud. I fully expect them to elevate the ex-fighter or the child porn guy over the candidate who is practically a lock to win the general.
Dean Heller will jump in and will take the nomination. Elected to multiple statewide offices which is a leg up in any primary.
With mail-in ballots Sisolak wins no matter who is nominated by the useless RINO NVGOP.
"Elected to multiple statewide offices which is a leg up in any primary."
Is it? The zealots in the Republican base are dogmatic, not pragmatic. They also hate Heller as a RINO and #NeverTrumper.
Let's focus on the positive: dating has become incredibly easy. Three questions and I can predict with 99% accuracy if we'll get along:
1. Did you vote for Trump?
2. Did you take the shot?
3. Did you wear a mask?
Bonus round if the candidate shows promise:
Did Epstein kill himself? (You can substitute Mcafee, or when it's time, Assange.)
Final question. Warning: if the candidate nails this one, off to wedding chapel you go!
Was Ayn Rand right?
@6:39
The writer should become an MSN reporter. Likes hyperbole, stretches facts, seeks to promote hysteria.
And speaks only in absolutes. I love it when great lawyering is knocked down a notch by one's politics
I predict Bitcoin to the moon!