- Quickdraw McLaw
- 35 Comments
- 256 Views
- Clark County is considering taking vagrancy laws off the books. [TNI]
- Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler will be deciding whether Sheldon Adelson will be deposed in the RJ/Sun lawsuit. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Judge Holthus ruled Wayne Newton can get his stuff back. [RJ]
- Police are using shotspotter tech to solve crimes. [Fox5Vegas]
Can you please ban political talk on this blog? It is ruining it and making it the RJ comment section.
Agreed. When it comes to politics, I vent my spleen on Twitter, not here.
Yes, please. I much prefer legal talk. Ban politics here.
Exactly. I hate coming here and reading things like "The Senate just acquitted Trump on all bogus impeachment charges" and "What kind of cud was Pelosi chewing yesterday" and "Why should Rush Limbaugh get a Presidential Medal of Freedom, even though an impeached President Clinton received one from Obama?". Those kinds of statements just infuriate me and are not suitable for a blog like this.
Agree with 8:29 as to Trump, the Dems, and national politics – but I hope we can continue to discuss local judicial races. The Trumpbots are taking over the blog and weighing it down with posts that have little to do with Las Vegas or the law.
Jimmerson worked Wiley up and down that Wayne Newton case.
Agree with 8:29 and 8:41
Disagree with 9:03 (who agreed with 8:29 and 8:41). National politics directly affect the Supreme Court, Judges, law, etc. all of which are local and legal. This blog barely has any life left to it and a small number of posts each day presumably by the same people as their writing style and subjects are very similar. I say speak what you want and let's get some more people on this blog. I'd go so far as to invite some liberals/Democrats just for fun.
@9:27 Invite liberals and democrats
We already got those on this site. Better idea; invite gossip, rumor and innuendo.
Anyone know what Stefany Miley plans to do after her term expires?
I continue to maintain that she could have easily won reelection.
Stripper?
Sure she could have won re-election. The voters have not a clue. And she looks good on those chain link fence signs.
My guess. She just got tired of all of us. She can probably retire from practice.
Little Darlings?
10:08–yes she would probably would have won re-election. Attractive blonde females, with glamour shots on their signs, usually do real well in judicial races–races that people tend to pay no attention to.
Plus she is an entrenched incumbent, with high name recognition(although, admittedly, not all that name-recognition is of a positive nature), and she would probably(despite the controversies) hold onto many of her important endorsements, community support, contributors, attorney support, etc.
But she may have simply not wanted to endure an election year where the media, and her opponent, revive and heavily publicize, the challenges she has been involved in which were reported.
There are other incumbents who probably could have won(including two or more in Family Court) who probably just did not want to deal with all the unpleasantness of a contested campaign, whereby their low survey ratings, and worse yet Discipline Commission decisions, would be revived and heavily exploited by a well-funded opponent, as well as the media.
Easy solution for Stefany: stop brawlin' with yer kinfolk
She does not care; neither do I. Isn't it funny how you can talk about certain judges on here and not others? Interesting.
As 2:55 suggests, I have noticed that every campaign cycle there are one or more incumbent judges who could have probably won re-election, and are not too close to retirement age, but who decide not to run based on low survey ratings and/or an adverse decision of the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission.
Those discipline proceedings can be very protracted and must be very nerve-wracking, emotionally draining and otherwise a tortuous experience for a judge. Plus they are heavily publicly reported(unlike most lawyer discipline matters).
I'm not suggesting we should feel sorry for these judges. I'm just pointing out the toll it must take, even if in many cases it is well-deserved and they essentially brought it upon themselves.
But submitting to a re-election essentially amounts to largely re-living those proceedings, and constantly being confronted by them even if they were completed some months, or even a year or two, earlier.
And as to the survey results, low-rated judges endure the one hit and the one article about the low-rated judges and then try to move on. But if a low-rated judge decides to run for re-election, then for ten months they are constantly reminded when their 40% retention score is repeatedly publicized and ground into their faces.
So, perhaps those are some of the emotional, as well as practical, motivations as to why some judges who could be re-elected, and who still enjoy their jobs and are not too close to retirement age, decide not to run for re-election.
There's also the senior judge consideration. If the person retires, they can get a decent supplemental income as a senior judge. If the person is defeated in an election, they are ineligible for senior judge status.
3:13–yes, that's another valid reason for why an embattled incumbent might not take a chance on re-election. The Senior Judge gig is a really good one as to pay in proportion to actual work performed. Plus the Senior Judge funds they earn are supplemented by whatever judicial pension they earned.
A big NO to removing the elected President. Too bad for all you Obammy clowns. #WEWON #TRUMP2020
Yes, you win and the country lost.
The country elected him dip***t. Unless you are one of AOC's bootlickers who didn't make it out of Poly Sci 101 and the electoral college justifications.
3:25, please tell me you are a lawyer.
Oh cool are we doing name calling now?
"The country elected him"
Well, yeah, that's a condition precedent to impeaching him lol
You all should be loud, white, and proud to be a member of the Independent American party!
3:25 here – 3:31 that's an awfully big term. So is being born. Neither supports the other. As far as name calling, it happens all the time on this blog. Just because it's all dressed up like "slapped with the long dick of the law" or "eat a bowl of dicks" or maybe a Judge should be a stripper, means I actually elevated the discussion haha, why so serious? Yes, I'm a lawyer but I tell my family I'm a prostitute.
413 is your first name eric?
The whole idea that this was an Obama-lover coup is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. What kind of democrat coup would leave Mike Pence as the president? And as far as honoring elections, the People elected a democratic majority house in 2018 as a check on our executive branch so they could do a little oversight. That’s honoring elections.
3:31 here, I apologize for my confusion that when you called 2:43 a "dipshit" and an "AOC bootlicker" you were actually elevating the conversation. Silly me!
People are free, of course, to discuss whatever they want, but to dominate a blog, that is somewhat narrowly tailored to the local legal scene, with angry partisan national politics, seems counterproductive.
I might feel differently if there was some attempt at thoughtful analysis and discussion, and some attempt to at least partially consider, and minimally respect, an opinion other than our own.
But instead all it amounts to is either a poster is responding to another poster and calling them a total moron based on them being a Democrat or Republican.
We don't sound like lawyers, but sound like addled-minded bigots if we reflexively condemn and viciously attack someone simply because they either support the President, or do not support him.
Not only is no one going to change anyone's mind, but no one is going to refrain from juvenile personal attacks on someone who may have an opinion different than their own. Therefore, why not leave all that to some other blog? There's a gazillion political blogs.
Arguing about the impeachment hearings is about as productive and respectful as entertaining arguments between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. No one concedes anything and it all devolves into a mud-slinging contest.
I don't generally think I am in a positon to lecture anyone on right or wrong, but based on some of these remarks, someone better start giving some of these posters a dose of tough love.
Two words of advice to these angry political posters: Grow Up. News Flash: there are people that may be different than you and have some different view points, but, as shocking as this may be to some of you folks, they are still human and merit some respect. Believe it or not, people who are not exactly like you still deserve to exist.
Now that I read what I wrote, I fully concede that I am being quite venomous when I condemn venomous people, and thus some level of irony, or even hypocrisy, is entering the matter. I must fully own that. I concede I truly despise those of you who seek to rob others of their humanity and worth simply because they may have political opinions which differ from yours.
I am glad to see that bigot, Rush Limbaugh received the medal of freedom.
So you are pro bigot? Or are you actually unhappy about the awarding of the medal? I hope your legal briefs have more clarity.
No, they are not pro bigot. Read the post.