Today is the last day for candidate filing. Live updates in this post at TNI, along with mention that Joey Gilbert will not be running for congress and that Gov. Lombardo appointed Peter Thunnel to the bench in Department 26.
Lawyer for Summerlin teen appeals decision to try boy as adult over sex assault recording. [RJ]
Metro, Judge Eric Goodman clash over 35-time arrestee’s release: “This is an issue of public safety.” [8NewsNow]
Tech company defends itself after CCSD pauses decision on school bus camera contract. [8NewsNow]
Next week is spring break for CCSD and the start of the NCCA tournament. Are you going anywhere? Are your kids going somewhere without you? Is your office going to do a bracket? Will any work get done at all?
Goodey can stay in justice court, where the rules are made up and the points don’t matter. Why would anyone give up a job that comes with a full-time salary for a 12-15 hour work week?
Guest
Anonymous
March 13, 2026 10:42 am
Amen, maybe with Thunell on the bench we can start to balance out the male/female judge ratio a bit. 2020 brought a few too many Ballous to the bench. I want to be clear that I’m not saying all female judges are bad, we definitely have some great women on the bench. We also, sadly, have far too many deeply unqualified women on the bench.
Thank you. It just seems a little crazy to me that simply being a woman = judge these days. Two women put their names down to run for judge this election and didn’t even get a challenger because of…what? A magic curse against men on the bench? The pendulum has to start swinging back the other way or we’re just going to have a generation of judges without experience or accountability.
Your wording gives away the assumption driving your argument. You say “unqualified women” rather than “unqualified people.” That distinction matters. It suggests that when a woman lacks experience, you interpret it as evidence of incompetence. Yet when men lack the same experience, they are still presumed “qualified” rather than simply early in their careers or still developing as judges. In other words, inexperience is treated as disqualifying only when the candidate is a woman.
It’s also worth pointing out that the premise is outdated. The women currently serving on the bench have now accumulated six years of judicial experience and are, by definition, qualified. Whatever one thought at the moment they were first appointed or elected, they are no longer newcomers. They have presided over cases, managed courtrooms, written rulings, and built the same kind of practical record that critics claim to value. Continuing to frame them as “unqualified” ignores the reality of the experience they have actually gained while serving.
That’s why the criticism rings less like a neutral assessment of qualifications and more like a rhetorical strategy. Labeling sitting judges “unqualified” after years on the bench is not really about evaluating performance; it’s about delegitimizing them before voters even consider their records.
Which is why these posts feel less like genuine concern about judicial competence and more like campaign messaging. The language is exactly the kind of framing political consultants use when they are trying to clear space for challengers: redefine the incumbents as illegitimate, repeat the label often enough, and hope it sticks. When the framing consistently targets women and ignores comparable issues for male candidates, it becomes even more transparent. So I now assume all these “unqualified women judges” posts are written by campaign consultants.
11:30 a.m. here. Nope. I understand how judicial races are run in Las Vegas, and as a woman, I’m used to seeing implicit bias used as a weapon. Also, I’m a very good writer.
The problem with your response is that it argues against a premise that the original comment never actually made.
First, pointing out the phrase “unqualified women” does not automatically imply that men are presumed qualified. The original comment explicitly acknowledged that there are good women on the bench while also criticizing some who the commenter believes are unqualified. That is a critique of specific judges, not a claim that gender determines competence. The fact that the subject being discussed was female judges explains the wording; it does not prove the broader assumption you’re attributing to the commenter.
Second, time on the bench does not automatically equal qualification. Experience can certainly improve a judge, but simply holding the position for six years doesn’t logically settle the question of whether someone was well-qualified in the first place or whether they have performed well since. Judges are evaluated on their rulings, courtroom management, legal reasoning, and professionalism—not merely the number of years they’ve held the robe. Voters regularly reassess incumbents for exactly that reason.
Third, your argument reframes a disagreement about performance and qualifications as a claim of bias, without demonstrating that bias actually exists. Saying that criticism of certain judges “targets women” only works if the criticism is directed at women because they are women. But nothing in the original comment shows that. It simply states that some judges—who happen to be women—are viewed as unqualified. That may or may not be correct, but dismissing the criticism as sexism avoids engaging with the substance of the claim.
Finally, suggesting that anyone who raises concerns must be a campaign consultant is a rhetorical shortcut rather than a rebuttal. It sidesteps the underlying issue—whether particular judges are performing well—by speculating about motives. Reasonable people can disagree about judicial qualifications without it being part of a coordinated political strategy.
By your AI-powered logic, Erica Ballou and Kristal Bradford are currently judges and are therefore qualified to be judges. Yet the former is suspended due to her lack of competence and the latter is by far the lowest-rated judge in Justice Court who replaced Joe Sciscento, an absurdly more competent and qualified judge. It’s okay to call out women specifically for their lack of competence and qualifications when they’re objectively poor performers who just happened to luck their way onto the bench.
11:30 a.m. here. I’m old enough to remember when John Ralston repeated political consultants’ tropes about Dina Titus having a “shrill voice” and poor sartorial choices– all of which made her “unqualified” to be Governor. Now she’s been a Congresswoman for 13 years. Funny that.
20 years of meeting her at initimate Democratic gatherings, plus donations, heck yeah, this is Nevada. I once met Gov. O’Callahan on a plane and he remebered me 2 years later.
Ralston turned out to be right that her voice and politics were too shrill for statewide office which is why she can hold a blue district so successfully.
Right, it was the prosecutor’s office that made her ignore the Supreme Court’s direct order and engage in repeated acts of improper behavior on and off the bench.
I can’t help but notice that, in many recent posts, the only response to a comment that makes good points using something above a fifth grade vocabulary is, “AI.” Is it just me, or is that just a lazy way to invalidate someone’s thoughts/opinions without having to engage in critical thinking?
Nah. AI tends to be structurally formulaic and uses some pretty tell-tale catchphrases. Plus there are several AI checkers for free online and that comment comes back as about 75% AI. Maybe the original poster changed some of it, but the majority is just AI cut and paste.
I’m not commenting about the post in this thread because, well, I ain’t reading all that, but I don’t think it’s crazy to have a rebuttable assumption of AI if someone writes 5+ paragraphs as a blog comment.
There was no need to have a balance for the first 235 years of this country. Now, all of a sudden there needs to be a gender balance. Why could that be?
To the guy that likes to complain about gender inequality (yes, I know you are a guy. Other things I’m willing to bet on: you don’t get laid much, and you don’t have any female friends, because nobody wants to listen to your sexist rants). You are exactly why this profession sucks
About a 50/50 split of men and women in Clark County. Clark County district court bench is 78% women. Believe it or not, there are some male attorneys out there that would be great judges. Why should we be electing judges simply for being female? Seems a little strange.
And if you are a guy who wants to run for judge, 2:56 pm is the consultant for you.
Also, may I suggest that men who want to run for judge should probably put in the leg work that the women running put in. This idea that they won a judicial race simply because they are women is a farce and further insult to women judges.
Christy Craig who is a good judge did nothing and beat Rob Bare who was a great judge. Trevor Atkin did everything right and lost to Jessica Peterson who did a fraction of what Trevor did. Women make up a slight majority of voters. They vote for female candidates 55 to 45 per cent of the time according to Dave Thomas. We had Terry Coffing lose. We had Mark Bailus lose. The EMERGE group targeted the male judicial candidates and picked them off. I thought EMERGE was a joke but it worked. The only time gender is not an issue is when it is between two female candidates.
I love how this post goes from “women did no work” to “the Emerge cabal.” Emerge teaches women to put in the work and then holds them accountable for getting out of their comfort zone and doing the work. Emerge isn’t a free, do nothing ride.
No but Emerge was an extremely effective organization to put women up in every race to knock men off of the bench. Emerge ran a very politically distinctive slate and is getting judicial decisions that match those leanings. Us Republicans cannot complain because its exactly what the GOP has effectively done at the Federal level to stack courts.
The “Republican campaign” (by which I think you mean the Federalist Society) at the federal level is completely different because federal judges aren’t elected.
I don’t care at all about having a disproportionate number of female judges but in the interest of accuracy, there was at least one female candidate who raised like $100 and had no campaign whatsoever and still won in 2020.
You must not have appeared before him recently… the majority of defense attorney’s and PD’s will tell you he is cranky, short tempered and seemingly always in a bad mood. His overly rigid application of his “rules” on how quickly a case should proceed, no matter the circumstances is unnecessarily difficult to deal with. He also misses A LOT of work, which no one seems to mind as anyone who they replace him with is much better to deal with!
That’s what happens when you become a first time father at 50 years old
Guest
Anonymous
March 13, 2026 12:44 pm
The LVMPD story is frankly shocking and is the definition of contempt. The Court is not asking Metro if someone is qualified for the programs; that determination has already been made that they are going into the program and an Order entered that is to be met. It is not that Metro cannot comply with the Order; it is that Metro has unilaterally decided that its judgment makes it decide that it does not want to comply with the Order. If Metro (or any party) disagrees with a Court Order, your options are to comply and seek a stay or comply and appeal. It is not to simply ignore the Order. That is the definition of willful contempt.
“Be the first to comment”
Sorry, no can do, gone for spring break
Glad to see Hooge take another L
Enjoy being a bench warmer for the next 8 months Pete! #getgoodey!
8 months of work and then he gets to put Hon. Pete Thunnel (ret.) on his bio forever.
Does that come with an automatic job offer at JAMS?
I believe so. At your retirement party they give you a gold watch and a contract with JAMS.
Except it would have to say (fmr.). You’re not retired if you lose your seat as a result of losing an election.
OK Mr. Pedantic. What are you, a lawyer?
Goodey can stay in justice court, where the rules are made up and the points don’t matter. Why would anyone give up a job that comes with a full-time salary for a 12-15 hour work week?
Amen, maybe with Thunell on the bench we can start to balance out the male/female judge ratio a bit. 2020 brought a few too many Ballous to the bench. I want to be clear that I’m not saying all female judges are bad, we definitely have some great women on the bench. We also, sadly, have far too many deeply unqualified women on the bench.
Thank you. It just seems a little crazy to me that simply being a woman = judge these days. Two women put their names down to run for judge this election and didn’t even get a challenger because of…what? A magic curse against men on the bench? The pendulum has to start swinging back the other way or we’re just going to have a generation of judges without experience or accountability.
Your wording gives away the assumption driving your argument. You say “unqualified women” rather than “unqualified people.” That distinction matters. It suggests that when a woman lacks experience, you interpret it as evidence of incompetence. Yet when men lack the same experience, they are still presumed “qualified” rather than simply early in their careers or still developing as judges. In other words, inexperience is treated as disqualifying only when the candidate is a woman.
It’s also worth pointing out that the premise is outdated. The women currently serving on the bench have now accumulated six years of judicial experience and are, by definition, qualified. Whatever one thought at the moment they were first appointed or elected, they are no longer newcomers. They have presided over cases, managed courtrooms, written rulings, and built the same kind of practical record that critics claim to value. Continuing to frame them as “unqualified” ignores the reality of the experience they have actually gained while serving.
That’s why the criticism rings less like a neutral assessment of qualifications and more like a rhetorical strategy. Labeling sitting judges “unqualified” after years on the bench is not really about evaluating performance; it’s about delegitimizing them before voters even consider their records.
Which is why these posts feel less like genuine concern about judicial competence and more like campaign messaging. The language is exactly the kind of framing political consultants use when they are trying to clear space for challengers: redefine the incumbents as illegitimate, repeat the label often enough, and hope it sticks. When the framing consistently targets women and ignores comparable issues for male candidates, it becomes even more transparent. So I now assume all these “unqualified women judges” posts are written by campaign consultants.
This comment brought to you by Sam Altman and the fine folks at ChatGPT.
11:30 a.m. here. Nope. I understand how judicial races are run in Las Vegas, and as a woman, I’m used to seeing implicit bias used as a weapon. Also, I’m a very good writer.
The problem with your response is that it argues against a premise that the original comment never actually made.
First, pointing out the phrase “unqualified women” does not automatically imply that men are presumed qualified. The original comment explicitly acknowledged that there are good women on the bench while also criticizing some who the commenter believes are unqualified. That is a critique of specific judges, not a claim that gender determines competence. The fact that the subject being discussed was female judges explains the wording; it does not prove the broader assumption you’re attributing to the commenter.
Second, time on the bench does not automatically equal qualification. Experience can certainly improve a judge, but simply holding the position for six years doesn’t logically settle the question of whether someone was well-qualified in the first place or whether they have performed well since. Judges are evaluated on their rulings, courtroom management, legal reasoning, and professionalism—not merely the number of years they’ve held the robe. Voters regularly reassess incumbents for exactly that reason.
Third, your argument reframes a disagreement about performance and qualifications as a claim of bias, without demonstrating that bias actually exists. Saying that criticism of certain judges “targets women” only works if the criticism is directed at women because they are women. But nothing in the original comment shows that. It simply states that some judges—who happen to be women—are viewed as unqualified. That may or may not be correct, but dismissing the criticism as sexism avoids engaging with the substance of the claim.
Finally, suggesting that anyone who raises concerns must be a campaign consultant is a rhetorical shortcut rather than a rebuttal. It sidesteps the underlying issue—whether particular judges are performing well—by speculating about motives. Reasonable people can disagree about judicial qualifications without it being part of a coordinated political strategy.
By your AI-powered logic, Erica Ballou and Kristal Bradford are currently judges and are therefore qualified to be judges. Yet the former is suspended due to her lack of competence and the latter is by far the lowest-rated judge in Justice Court who replaced Joe Sciscento, an absurdly more competent and qualified judge. It’s okay to call out women specifically for their lack of competence and qualifications when they’re objectively poor performers who just happened to luck their way onto the bench.
11:30 a.m. here. I’m old enough to remember when John Ralston repeated political consultants’ tropes about Dina Titus having a “shrill voice” and poor sartorial choices– all of which made her “unqualified” to be Governor. Now she’s been a Congresswoman for 13 years. Funny that.
I usually agree with Titus’ politics but I have met her several times and she always acts like she has no idea who I am. Not a great people person.
Wow. Now that’s ego. This is a woman who meetings dozens of new people a day… and you expect her to remember you?
20 years of meeting her at initimate Democratic gatherings, plus donations, heck yeah, this is Nevada. I once met Gov. O’Callahan on a plane and he remebered me 2 years later.
O’Callahan was the best. If we had a hundred people like him in government we’d have a chance to save our Republic.
Ralston turned out to be right that her voice and politics were too shrill for statewide office which is why she can hold a blue district so successfully.
She is still unqualified.
Ballou isn’t unqualified. She is just fighting against an unfair system and a very strong prosecutorial influence in our judiciary.
Right, it was the prosecutor’s office that made her ignore the Supreme Court’s direct order and engage in repeated acts of improper behavior on and off the bench.
See, racism.
Sort of right. She used to get my cases correct about 49.8% of the time, equal with a coin flip.
And racism, don’t forget racism.
I can’t help but notice that, in many recent posts, the only response to a comment that makes good points using something above a fifth grade vocabulary is, “AI.” Is it just me, or is that just a lazy way to invalidate someone’s thoughts/opinions without having to engage in critical thinking?
Well it used to be “double hockey sticks”. So the optimist in me says we have advanced and are evolving.
Nah. AI tends to be structurally formulaic and uses some pretty tell-tale catchphrases. Plus there are several AI checkers for free online and that comment comes back as about 75% AI. Maybe the original poster changed some of it, but the majority is just AI cut and paste.
AI checkers are notoriously unreliable.
Agreed. Yet someone here always needs to say it
I’m not commenting about the post in this thread because, well, I ain’t reading all that, but I don’t think it’s crazy to have a rebuttable assumption of AI if someone writes 5+ paragraphs as a blog comment.
Gee whiz, that was some rant!
why does there need to be a balance of men and women??????
There was no need to have a balance for the first 235 years of this country. Now, all of a sudden there needs to be a gender balance. Why could that be?
To the guy that likes to complain about gender inequality (yes, I know you are a guy. Other things I’m willing to bet on: you don’t get laid much, and you don’t have any female friends, because nobody wants to listen to your sexist rants). You are exactly why this profession sucks
About a 50/50 split of men and women in Clark County. Clark County district court bench is 78% women. Believe it or not, there are some male attorneys out there that would be great judges. Why should we be electing judges simply for being female? Seems a little strange.
And if you are a guy who wants to run for judge, 2:56 pm is the consultant for you.
Also, may I suggest that men who want to run for judge should probably put in the leg work that the women running put in. This idea that they won a judicial race simply because they are women is a farce and further insult to women judges.
Ballou put in ZERO leg work. Didn’t advertise. Didn’t campaign. Didn’t go to rubber chicken dinners. Tell me more about this farce.
Christy Craig who is a good judge did nothing and beat Rob Bare who was a great judge. Trevor Atkin did everything right and lost to Jessica Peterson who did a fraction of what Trevor did. Women make up a slight majority of voters. They vote for female candidates 55 to 45 per cent of the time according to Dave Thomas. We had Terry Coffing lose. We had Mark Bailus lose. The EMERGE group targeted the male judicial candidates and picked them off. I thought EMERGE was a joke but it worked. The only time gender is not an issue is when it is between two female candidates.
Thank you for pointing that out Dave Thomas
I love how this post goes from “women did no work” to “the Emerge cabal.” Emerge teaches women to put in the work and then holds them accountable for getting out of their comfort zone and doing the work. Emerge isn’t a free, do nothing ride.
No but Emerge was an extremely effective organization to put women up in every race to knock men off of the bench. Emerge ran a very politically distinctive slate and is getting judicial decisions that match those leanings. Us Republicans cannot complain because its exactly what the GOP has effectively done at the Federal level to stack courts.
The “Republican campaign” (by which I think you mean the Federalist Society) at the federal level is completely different because federal judges aren’t elected.
What exactly made Rob Bare a great judge besides being completely unprepared and relying entirely on his law clerks?
I don’t care at all about having a disproportionate number of female judges but in the interest of accuracy, there was at least one female candidate who raised like $100 and had no campaign whatsoever and still won in 2020.
You mean the year the entire world shut down?
I’m going to spend my spring break researching how many men are in judicial positions for which they are not qualified.
Well there’s Bonaventure Jr. for starters. Didn’t he only have six months experience as an attorney before he took the bench?
And, yet he has been an awesome JP, nee’ one of the best JPs ever since.
I agree! What a gentleman, and Eric Goodman too.
You must not have appeared before him recently… the majority of defense attorney’s and PD’s will tell you he is cranky, short tempered and seemingly always in a bad mood. His overly rigid application of his “rules” on how quickly a case should proceed, no matter the circumstances is unnecessarily difficult to deal with. He also misses A LOT of work, which no one seems to mind as anyone who they replace him with is much better to deal with!
That’s what happens when you become a first time father at 50 years old
The LVMPD story is frankly shocking and is the definition of contempt. The Court is not asking Metro if someone is qualified for the programs; that determination has already been made that they are going into the program and an Order entered that is to be met. It is not that Metro cannot comply with the Order; it is that Metro has unilaterally decided that its judgment makes it decide that it does not want to comply with the Order. If Metro (or any party) disagrees with a Court Order, your options are to comply and seek a stay or comply and appeal. It is not to simply ignore the Order. That is the definition of willful contempt.
Agreed. Not sure what the debate is. If Metro’s position in correct, then there are a whole lot of ramifications for our court system.
What’s next? Is P&P going to refuse to supervise probationers who it deems to be unfit for supervision?
Sounds like Metro is taking their cue from the current administration that revels in defying court orders.
Pete Thunell!!!!!!!!
Curious, how many of you guys are working a full 8 hours on Fridays?
Who limits it to 8 on Fridays?
Billing 8 hours or working 8 hours?
I only work a full 8 hours on Friday if I have something in court at or before 10am Monday. Otherwise, I may make it to 3pm.
Drive safe out there my friends and do not maliciously run people over.
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/attorney-runs-over-kills-man-with-his-mercedes-he-wants-his-bond-changed-so-he-can-travel/Y4A3IZ2BF5BODLAIIGXF6W2TJA/