If we become part of a National Popular Vote, that means that national candidates can ignore Nevada with impunity moving forward. They'll just need to get the votes in Los Angeles, New York City, and the few other major population centers and so goes the national election. You think Nevada is ignored now – just wait until our votes don't count.
Nevada has not been ignored the last few cycles, but this will change as the state becomes more consistently blue. Right now, partisan states are ignored for swing states. Under the current system, Nevada is set to become completely irrelevant soon as it becomes impossible for a Republican to win a statewide election.
9:52 makes an excellent point. I wonder what kind of attention we will get in 2020. Part of the waning Republican power in the state is temporary- the state party is run by incompetent hacks who did almost nothing effective to GOTV in 2016. But there are also broader demographic trends that cut against the GOP- population increases among young people, Hispanics, and urban dwellers. That said, I don't think the scales have tipped quite yet. It wasn't that long ago (2014) that the GOP swept the midterm elections here, and they did that with incapable leadership. If the state GOP were to be run by semi-competent people they could be quite competitive in 2020. And that's especially true if the Democrats nominate a weak candidate and the economy is still booming. I would never vote for Trump, but I think he has a real chance to win Nevada in 2020.
But beyond 2020, Nevada will eventually, at some point, cease to be a battle ground state. Besides that, the national popular vote movement is what is best for our democracy. The minority should not be able to hold the majority captive electorally. Given the increasingly polarized divide in the country, which is geographical, the chances of the electoral college and popular vote splitting again are significant.
I think the National Popular Vote compact is a bad idea. It's not just about Nevada. I agree with 9:52 and 10:46 – Nevada will be ignored once it is no longer a swing state. But that's not why it's a bad idea.
NPV is a bad idea because, as 10:46 notes, it essentially would mean that *no where* matters, not even a whit, except dense, urban population centers. The Electoral College balances that, and I think that is necessary for the health of the nation because even if fewer people live in rural areas, those areas are critical to producing our food, oil, timber, and other natural resources that make us a rich nation. And the people who live and work there should have a meaningful voice in national politics.
Also, as 10:46 noted, demographics are changing. While it's possible the GOP will be competitive in 2020, I think the GOP's days are numbered, simply because of the demographic changes. NPV seems like a short-sighted and massively over-reaching "solution" to something that is, at most, only an occasional "problem."
All that being said, if enough states ever ratify it, it would sure be fun to be in the middle of all the ensuing litigation over whether it's even constitutional.
Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, who was seeking reelection in 2014, was at that time perhaps the most popular politician–regardless of party–in the state. Considering Democrats didn't put forward a legitimate or viable challenger for governor, it was no surprise 2014 would be a sweep for Sandoval and coat-riding Republicans.
Sandoval was so popular I wonder if Jesus Himself ran whether Sandoval could've lost reelection. It was an outlier year, one that Democrats hope won't repeat anytime soon.
Couldn't have been that big of an outlier. It was the year the rising Latina star hit the national stage and won the Lt. Governorship by a landslide, showing that Harry Reid's blessing, impeccable credentials and a smoothly-run campaign office were enough to take control.
It would mean that only three or four states would control national elections, California, New York and Florida. The framers recognized that the popular vote would blow in wind of emotion of the moment. That small states would be held in a death grip by large states. Hence the system of 2 senate seats and house seats based on population. A bicameral system that works (most of the time).
Guest
Particular
May 22, 2019 4:49 pm
You should take that up with Gov. Sisolak directly as soon as possible.
I get that argument, but the whole premise is to level the playing field and make every vote matter. Nevada will continue to be important to the primaries, and our Senate races will still get national attention. So what if we lose a little presidential pandering? I think everyone who has had to deal with the traffic that comes with a presidential visit will be willing to sacrifice.
To make every vote matter, you have to actually make votes matter. The purpose of the electoral college is specifically so that those in smaller population states have a say in who is their president. Last I looked, Nevada was a smaller population state. The president should be elected by a majority of the states so that the president represents the whole diverse nation of states, not just the 8-9 states that hold more than 50% of the US population. It's similar to the reason we have the Senate as well as Congress instead of just Congress.
Of course, all of this doesn't matter because the last two times a president was elected by the electoral college over the popular vote, the winner was Republican, and any concept that benefits Republicans is the tool of the devil and must be stricken from this planet as anti-(cause du jour).
People state this kind of thing all the time like it is self-evident. Why should less-populated states be given disproportionate power to balance things out? It seems far more intuitive to me that ensuring the people have a voice matters more than ensuring states have a voice. If half the country lives in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, then those people should have half the say in the direction of the country.
1:13 is spot on. Why is allowing a few thousand former steel workers and coal miners in the rust belt to pick the president a better option than majority rule? Seems like having the country's direction decided by 80k (largely rural) votes that are in no way representative of the rest of the country is a really dumb way to do thing.
@3:04p – spoken like someone who doesn't live in the rust belt, isn't a steel worker, nor coal miner, and dismissive of the reasons why the electoral college was created.
Guest
Anonymous
May 22, 2019 5:28 pm
Kari Stephens is going to make it back onto the BoG. I have had multiple intermediary contacts send sugary, banal emails telling me how great she is and urging me to vote for her. Plus, there isn't as much angst in this election as there was last time.
Last time (as much as I wish it was angst) it was alphabetical. Those top of the ballot have done nothing to effect change. Stephens is an "s". I would not count on her getting through.
Guest
Anonymous
May 22, 2019 6:09 pm
Regarding the "micro-credentialing" argument in the ATL article: That sounds like a terrible idea, especially the part where he argues that it would have a "positive impact" on those currently failing the bar exam.
*Ahem* That's a feature of the bar exam, not a bug. If you can't get your shit together enough to pass it, you have no business being a lawyer of any kind, even a "micro-creditialed" one.
Also, it seems like such a system would pigeonhole people into super-specialized practice areas. If the market for whatever that is dries up, or you have to move, or whatever, you'd have to go back to school and get relicensed under a new credential.
There are tons of problems facing future lawyers. And I think we are going to see more and more para-legal type licensing things in the future, but I don't see it taking the micro-credentialing route.
The idea that there are discrete areas of law is also a myth. The article relies on a distinction between criminal and civil law, but within civil law, it all bleeds together. My practice area requires that I have workable knowledge about peripheral issues in other areas of law.
Same thing for us criminal lawyers: immigration, banking laws, mortgage regulations. I've had white collar and environmental crimes cases where I needed to know (or learn) lots of civil areas.
ATL's JoPa comes out with a hackneyed idea that involved zero critical thinking and would have been lambasted by ATL's commentariat if ATL had the stones to still allow comments.
I'm shocked.
Guest
Anonymous
May 22, 2019 8:07 pm
11:33–and the same goes for Family Law to a large extent. I recognize that many practitioners from other areas take a dim view of Family Law, but there are many contested cases where other areas of law bleed over. It's important for a Family Law attorney to understand certain elements of Criminal Law, basic BK Law( including dischargeabilty, or lack thereof, as to certain obligations), Personal Injury Law(and what portions of a settlement may or may not be considered community property) etc.
But many practitioners still assume that Family Law is not real law, and do not take the practitioners in that area as serious or legitimate attorneys.
They also assume that practitioners in this area lack a certain dignity, etc. Well, I practiced in the area for years, and did fine financially, so I guess it is okay if some people have a negative view of this area of the Law. And I do lack a certain dignity(just ask my family and friends, or take a look at my wardrobe), so guilty as charged as to that issue.
But I pose the question to other Family Law practitioners: Do you think many attorneys, who practice in other area, have a negative view of this area of law? And I pose the question directly to those who practice in other areas: Do you, in general, have a negative view of Family Law and its practitioners?
My practice centers around civil litigation, mostly in state court, with the occasional federal district case. I took a few contested divorce/custody cases as a favor for existing clients; we got the spousal support set at the amount he wanted me to target, we got what the client wanted for child custody, defended the now ex-spouse's claim for marital waste (in one case), and defended against allegations of abuse in the other case.
I'm used to attorneys twisting the truth and doing the 'misrepresentation by omission' thing, but I am not used to attorneys in the civil side flat out making shit up about things that are easy to prove objectively to the contrary. "Your honor, Plaintiff doesn't have time for the kids because Plaintiff works 60 hrs/week and only has Saturdays off" when time sheets prove Plaintiff works 45 hrs/week and has for the past 2-3 years, and has Fridays and Saturdays off because the family business he works at is closed Saturdays & Sundays. At least on the civil side, the misrepresentations are more difficult to prove and are a challenge.
This was two different family law case, with a different attorney with substantial more family law experience than I had in family law (these two cases, and the occasional pro-bono adoption), and apparently they win cases by flat out lying to the judge with most of their cases against pro-se parties who aren't taken seriously by the judges. Literally 2 for 2 with attorney's blatantly lying to the judges. I don't get that in Civil.
So yes – I have a major negative view of family law. These were cases within the past 9-10 months so it's recent. I now just assume that all experienced family law attorneys are going to lie so the next time I take one for an existing civil lit client I'll be ready for them to do so again. I ended up having to send memorializing emails on EVERY SINGLE PHONE CONVERSATION I had with the attorney in the second case because that attorney would tell the judge "Your honor, I'm not sure why Plaintiff's counsel is saying that, when I spoke to Plaintiff's counsel by phone last month, counsel agreed to something completely different". I had to trot out the "Your honor, as you can see in my exhibit 4 to the motion, Defendant's confirmed what the conversation was about in an email I sent to him memorializing the call, and it matches what I put in the motion, not what Defendant's counsel is telling you today."
Come on…. Who does that shit?
THIS! The misrepresentation is astonishing. Mind-blowing. I have found the attorneys to be nasty, difficult, and unfamiliar with basic civil procedure. Its like they just make up what they want the rules to be. It is crazy.
There is one person I will not talk on the phone with. Everything is in writing. Never had to do that on the civil side.
The only way I practice family law is as 308 says. That is why I am pretty good at it. The problem with this type of law is that its SO hard to get paid what we are worth. That is why the shittier attorneys shortcut and cheat and lie. Its easier to lie and perhaps win against a pro per and then make the short pay up on referrals and volume.
No questions that some of the shady ones are locked into family law. But there are good ones too. Few and far between. Advice: do your work just like you would in a commercial lit case. THAT wins cases in Fam. Ct and gives you a solid rep to boot.
I used to work for a PI firm that would take family law cases whenever they came through the door, because the partners figured they were easy money. Of course, they didn't actually do any of the work, just had us associates, who had no training or experience in family law, handle everything. I figured that the rules were pretty much the same, so how hard could it be? I quickly learned that things were different in family court.
1. Rules don't matter. Unopposed motion? Ha! Just show up at the hearing and make up an opposition.
2. Lying is fine. Opposing counsel once submitted an affidavit saying that I had said and done some things. Not only had I not said or done those things in this case, they are things I would NEVER say or do under any circumstances. When I pointed this out, he doubled down and accused ME of lying.
3. Clients can be terrible. One of our clients was paying a steeply discounted rate because he was friends with a partner. Instead of being grateful, he abused us, refused to listen to any advice, and then disputed his bill!
The only way I'll touch a family law case now is in the process of handing it off to someone else.
358 here. You are not wrong 440. But on some rare occasions, you actually get to help someone that needs it. Its how I sleep at night and occasionally get to have some professional satisfaction in this shit profession.
Guest
Anonymous
May 22, 2019 10:06 pm
There are some fine attorneys that practice family law. But there are many "bottom feeders" as well, especially those dishing out "unbundled" services. The real problem is that the judges tolerate and promote mediocrity and unprofessional conduct. Thus, I confess to a dim view of the entire family law system.
Guest
Anonymous
May 22, 2019 10:44 pm
Do the Rules of Evidence even apply in Family Court?
There is a Nevada Supreme Court case that states custody matters must be decided on the merits. This translates to late filings, service issues and a general disregard for civil procedure and local rules. The good attorneys don't do this as a rule but it still happens. Family Court is the most depressing and mind-numbing place on in the county.
Hey 8:43 – you're not alone. I'm here at work too.
I think the trick is, you have to pick. You can't do it all well – nobody can. Focus and be or get good at something. That will give you a measure of success, which will turn into confidence, which will lead to happiness, at least at some level.
Time block, I know there is like a study that says you fill the time you are given. Prioritize and delegate the rest. You can have a life, we all should. Hugs.
If we become part of a National Popular Vote, that means that national candidates can ignore Nevada with impunity moving forward. They'll just need to get the votes in Los Angeles, New York City, and the few other major population centers and so goes the national election. You think Nevada is ignored now – just wait until our votes don't count.
Nevada has not been ignored the last few cycles, but this will change as the state becomes more consistently blue. Right now, partisan states are ignored for swing states. Under the current system, Nevada is set to become completely irrelevant soon as it becomes impossible for a Republican to win a statewide election.
9:52 makes an excellent point. I wonder what kind of attention we will get in 2020. Part of the waning Republican power in the state is temporary- the state party is run by incompetent hacks who did almost nothing effective to GOTV in 2016. But there are also broader demographic trends that cut against the GOP- population increases among young people, Hispanics, and urban dwellers. That said, I don't think the scales have tipped quite yet. It wasn't that long ago (2014) that the GOP swept the midterm elections here, and they did that with incapable leadership. If the state GOP were to be run by semi-competent people they could be quite competitive in 2020. And that's especially true if the Democrats nominate a weak candidate and the economy is still booming. I would never vote for Trump, but I think he has a real chance to win Nevada in 2020.
But beyond 2020, Nevada will eventually, at some point, cease to be a battle ground state. Besides that, the national popular vote movement is what is best for our democracy. The minority should not be able to hold the majority captive electorally. Given the increasingly polarized divide in the country, which is geographical, the chances of the electoral college and popular vote splitting again are significant.
I think the National Popular Vote compact is a bad idea. It's not just about Nevada. I agree with 9:52 and 10:46 – Nevada will be ignored once it is no longer a swing state. But that's not why it's a bad idea.
NPV is a bad idea because, as 10:46 notes, it essentially would mean that *no where* matters, not even a whit, except dense, urban population centers. The Electoral College balances that, and I think that is necessary for the health of the nation because even if fewer people live in rural areas, those areas are critical to producing our food, oil, timber, and other natural resources that make us a rich nation. And the people who live and work there should have a meaningful voice in national politics.
Also, as 10:46 noted, demographics are changing. While it's possible the GOP will be competitive in 2020, I think the GOP's days are numbered, simply because of the demographic changes. NPV seems like a short-sighted and massively over-reaching "solution" to something that is, at most, only an occasional "problem."
All that being said, if enough states ever ratify it, it would sure be fun to be in the middle of all the ensuing litigation over whether it's even constitutional.
Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, who was seeking reelection in 2014, was at that time perhaps the most popular politician–regardless of party–in the state. Considering Democrats didn't put forward a legitimate or viable challenger for governor, it was no surprise 2014 would be a sweep for Sandoval and coat-riding Republicans.
Sandoval was so popular I wonder if Jesus Himself ran whether Sandoval could've lost reelection. It was an outlier year, one that Democrats hope won't repeat anytime soon.
Couldn't have been that big of an outlier. It was the year the rising Latina star hit the national stage and won the Lt. Governorship by a landslide, showing that Harry Reid's blessing, impeccable credentials and a smoothly-run campaign office were enough to take control.
It would mean that only three or four states would control national elections, California, New York and Florida. The framers recognized that the popular vote would blow in wind of emotion of the moment. That small states would be held in a death grip by large states. Hence the system of 2 senate seats and house seats based on population. A bicameral system that works (most of the time).
You should take that up with Gov. Sisolak directly as soon as possible.
Yeah – that'll work……
Bring some Sisolak Kryptonite (https://donutbar.com/menu/) if you want to get his attention.
I get that argument, but the whole premise is to level the playing field and make every vote matter. Nevada will continue to be important to the primaries, and our Senate races will still get national attention. So what if we lose a little presidential pandering? I think everyone who has had to deal with the traffic that comes with a presidential visit will be willing to sacrifice.
To make every vote matter, you have to actually make votes matter. The purpose of the electoral college is specifically so that those in smaller population states have a say in who is their president. Last I looked, Nevada was a smaller population state. The president should be elected by a majority of the states so that the president represents the whole diverse nation of states, not just the 8-9 states that hold more than 50% of the US population. It's similar to the reason we have the Senate as well as Congress instead of just Congress.
Of course, all of this doesn't matter because the last two times a president was elected by the electoral college over the popular vote, the winner was Republican, and any concept that benefits Republicans is the tool of the devil and must be stricken from this planet as anti-(cause du jour).
People state this kind of thing all the time like it is self-evident. Why should less-populated states be given disproportionate power to balance things out? It seems far more intuitive to me that ensuring the people have a voice matters more than ensuring states have a voice. If half the country lives in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, then those people should have half the say in the direction of the country.
1:13 is spot on. Why is allowing a few thousand former steel workers and coal miners in the rust belt to pick the president a better option than majority rule? Seems like having the country's direction decided by 80k (largely rural) votes that are in no way representative of the rest of the country is a really dumb way to do thing.
@3:04p – spoken like someone who doesn't live in the rust belt, isn't a steel worker, nor coal miner, and dismissive of the reasons why the electoral college was created.
Kari Stephens is going to make it back onto the BoG. I have had multiple intermediary contacts send sugary, banal emails telling me how great she is and urging me to vote for her. Plus, there isn't as much angst in this election as there was last time.
I voted for Lachman. Anyone who can include a Journey song into their election biography is cool with me.
That's great!
Scott Lachman is a nice guy too. I voted for him.
Last time (as much as I wish it was angst) it was alphabetical. Those top of the ballot have done nothing to effect change. Stephens is an "s". I would not count on her getting through.
Regarding the "micro-credentialing" argument in the ATL article: That sounds like a terrible idea, especially the part where he argues that it would have a "positive impact" on those currently failing the bar exam.
*Ahem* That's a feature of the bar exam, not a bug. If you can't get your shit together enough to pass it, you have no business being a lawyer of any kind, even a "micro-creditialed" one.
Also, it seems like such a system would pigeonhole people into super-specialized practice areas. If the market for whatever that is dries up, or you have to move, or whatever, you'd have to go back to school and get relicensed under a new credential.
There are tons of problems facing future lawyers. And I think we are going to see more and more para-legal type licensing things in the future, but I don't see it taking the micro-credentialing route.
The idea that there are discrete areas of law is also a myth. The article relies on a distinction between criminal and civil law, but within civil law, it all bleeds together. My practice area requires that I have workable knowledge about peripheral issues in other areas of law.
Same thing for us criminal lawyers: immigration, banking laws, mortgage regulations. I've had white collar and environmental crimes cases where I needed to know (or learn) lots of civil areas.
ATL's JoPa comes out with a hackneyed idea that involved zero critical thinking and would have been lambasted by ATL's commentariat if ATL had the stones to still allow comments.
I'm shocked.
11:33–and the same goes for Family Law to a large extent. I recognize that many practitioners from other areas take a dim view of Family Law, but there are many contested cases where other areas of law bleed over. It's important for a Family Law attorney to understand certain elements of Criminal Law, basic BK Law( including dischargeabilty, or lack thereof, as to certain obligations), Personal Injury Law(and what portions of a settlement may or may not be considered community property) etc.
But many practitioners still assume that Family Law is not real law, and do not take the practitioners in that area as serious or legitimate attorneys.
They also assume that practitioners in this area lack a certain dignity, etc. Well, I practiced in the area for years, and did fine financially, so I guess it is okay if some people have a negative view of this area of the Law. And I do lack a certain dignity(just ask my family and friends, or take a look at my wardrobe), so guilty as charged as to that issue.
But I pose the question to other Family Law practitioners: Do you think many attorneys, who practice in other area, have a negative view of this area of law? And I pose the question directly to those who practice in other areas: Do you, in general, have a negative view of Family Law and its practitioners?
My practice centers around civil litigation, mostly in state court, with the occasional federal district case. I took a few contested divorce/custody cases as a favor for existing clients; we got the spousal support set at the amount he wanted me to target, we got what the client wanted for child custody, defended the now ex-spouse's claim for marital waste (in one case), and defended against allegations of abuse in the other case.
I'm used to attorneys twisting the truth and doing the 'misrepresentation by omission' thing, but I am not used to attorneys in the civil side flat out making shit up about things that are easy to prove objectively to the contrary. "Your honor, Plaintiff doesn't have time for the kids because Plaintiff works 60 hrs/week and only has Saturdays off" when time sheets prove Plaintiff works 45 hrs/week and has for the past 2-3 years, and has Fridays and Saturdays off because the family business he works at is closed Saturdays & Sundays. At least on the civil side, the misrepresentations are more difficult to prove and are a challenge.
This was two different family law case, with a different attorney with substantial more family law experience than I had in family law (these two cases, and the occasional pro-bono adoption), and apparently they win cases by flat out lying to the judge with most of their cases against pro-se parties who aren't taken seriously by the judges. Literally 2 for 2 with attorney's blatantly lying to the judges. I don't get that in Civil.
So yes – I have a major negative view of family law. These were cases within the past 9-10 months so it's recent. I now just assume that all experienced family law attorneys are going to lie so the next time I take one for an existing civil lit client I'll be ready for them to do so again. I ended up having to send memorializing emails on EVERY SINGLE PHONE CONVERSATION I had with the attorney in the second case because that attorney would tell the judge "Your honor, I'm not sure why Plaintiff's counsel is saying that, when I spoke to Plaintiff's counsel by phone last month, counsel agreed to something completely different". I had to trot out the "Your honor, as you can see in my exhibit 4 to the motion, Defendant's confirmed what the conversation was about in an email I sent to him memorializing the call, and it matches what I put in the motion, not what Defendant's counsel is telling you today."
Come on…. Who does that shit?
THIS! The misrepresentation is astonishing. Mind-blowing. I have found the attorneys to be nasty, difficult, and unfamiliar with basic civil procedure. Its like they just make up what they want the rules to be. It is crazy.
There is one person I will not talk on the phone with. Everything is in writing. Never had to do that on the civil side.
The only way I practice family law is as 308 says. That is why I am pretty good at it. The problem with this type of law is that its SO hard to get paid what we are worth. That is why the shittier attorneys shortcut and cheat and lie. Its easier to lie and perhaps win against a pro per and then make the short pay up on referrals and volume.
No questions that some of the shady ones are locked into family law. But there are good ones too. Few and far between. Advice: do your work just like you would in a commercial lit case. THAT wins cases in Fam. Ct and gives you a solid rep to boot.
I used to work for a PI firm that would take family law cases whenever they came through the door, because the partners figured they were easy money. Of course, they didn't actually do any of the work, just had us associates, who had no training or experience in family law, handle everything. I figured that the rules were pretty much the same, so how hard could it be? I quickly learned that things were different in family court.
1. Rules don't matter. Unopposed motion? Ha! Just show up at the hearing and make up an opposition.
2. Lying is fine. Opposing counsel once submitted an affidavit saying that I had said and done some things. Not only had I not said or done those things in this case, they are things I would NEVER say or do under any circumstances. When I pointed this out, he doubled down and accused ME of lying.
3. Clients can be terrible. One of our clients was paying a steeply discounted rate because he was friends with a partner. Instead of being grateful, he abused us, refused to listen to any advice, and then disputed his bill!
The only way I'll touch a family law case now is in the process of handing it off to someone else.
358 here. You are not wrong 440. But on some rare occasions, you actually get to help someone that needs it. Its how I sleep at night and occasionally get to have some professional satisfaction in this shit profession.
There are some fine attorneys that practice family law. But there are many "bottom feeders" as well, especially those dishing out "unbundled" services. The real problem is that the judges tolerate and promote mediocrity and unprofessional conduct. Thus, I confess to a dim view of the entire family law system.
Do the Rules of Evidence even apply in Family Court?
There is a Nevada Supreme Court case that states custody matters must be decided on the merits. This translates to late filings, service issues and a general disregard for civil procedure and local rules. The good attorneys don't do this as a rule but it still happens. Family Court is the most depressing and mind-numbing place on in the county.
Rules of what?
I try so hard.
And yet, here I am at the office at 9 PM. And I will be here for a few more hours.
I am a mediocre attorney.
An absent parent.
A lousy spouse.
I care, and I try. But trying doesn't count for shit, or as Yoda said, "Do or do not, there is no try."
Hey 8:43 – you're not alone. I'm here at work too.
I think the trick is, you have to pick. You can't do it all well – nobody can. Focus and be or get good at something. That will give you a measure of success, which will turn into confidence, which will lead to happiness, at least at some level.
Hang in there, buddy!
Time block, I know there is like a study that says you fill the time you are given. Prioritize and delegate the rest. You can have a life, we all should. Hugs.
I am sending my love and support your way. Hang in there!
What do you guys do? I'm in an insurance defense sweatshop and my office is almost entirely empty by 6 every day.