- Quickdraw McLaw
- 65 Comments
- 176 Views
- Nevada Senate advances criminal justice reform bills. [TNI]
- Is DETR finally getting a handle on its backlog? [TNI; 8NewsNow]
- Cyclists arrested after fights erupt downtown. [RJ; News3LV]
- An election for one seat on the Board of Governors starts Saturday with three candidates (bios here) vying for the opportunity:
- Jessica Goodey
- Augusta Massey
- Marisa Rodriguez
No waiting a year to get paid. Had to appeal, because I have been paid for only one quarter out of a year of benegits owed. Just received a medical form for no reason. Yes, these people have a clue.
Benefits
Who is the Nevada Supreme Court candidate we should not vote for? Probably Goodey.
Who is most likely to thwart efforts by carpet bagger Dean Dan to undermine admissions standards so that he can reap some of that sweet US News ranking "prestige" cheddar?
That is the person I want to vote for.
The only thing Dean Dan and the Boyd Admissions dept cares about is meeting their quotas… 2020 incoming 1L class was 20% LGBTQ – 20%?! If you're a minority or check one of their boxes, you're in…
And so we understand why I would never hire a Boyd graduate. They can't write for shit and are fully brain washed into nonsense. Can't spot issues but can spot triggers real quick. Useless. Great job, UNLV.
The latest Gallup poll shows that 1 in 6 Gen Z persons (i.e., aged 18 to 21 in year 2020) identify as LGBTQ+. Those people are going to law school. 20% LGBTQ+ is slightly greater than 1/6, but it's not ridiculous.
@11:13 – That Gallup poll you're referring to shows only 5.6% of the population identifying as LGBTQ nationally. I'm not sure what your insights are into the Boyd student demographics, but I can assure you there is a HUGE amount of students who do not fit into the Gen Z classification you have listed. The age of students on the website ranges from 20-55. Boyd is not a school where students generally are rolling straight from Undergrad into law school – a large number of students have families and have worked careers prior to enrolling in law school.
@11:21 yeah, I'll agree with most of that. I guess I just don't see the problem with the school admitting so many LGBT students. I remember when I attended a few years ago there were very few of us.
I thought Boyd was the new mini BYU. When I went, everyone had a grad degree. I am an old timer
@11:26- nothing wrong with admitting LGBTQ students, so long as the admittance is done based on merit. The quality of the average Boyd student has decreased significantly as the admissions dept is no longer looking for the smartest or the best writers… my advice to any potential Boyd applicants: if you have a sob story about discrimination from your past, lean into it hard in your personal statement and you'll be fine come decision time.
@11:32 most schools are interested in students who have overcome some sort of adversity. That's not unique to Boyd.
If only they were interested in honorable kids who can read, write, and think. Nope. They want navel gazers who valiantly overcame "discrimination" or "poverty." Fuck off.
it looks like Boyd's LSAT median LSAT is 159. I don't understand why you guys are arguing over the LGBTQ issue. Everyone there seems to be a moron.
https://www.lsac.org/lsat-interpretive-guide/2019-2020
I am no fan of UNLV Law, but a 159 is in the 76th percentile, hardly an indicator of "morons."
An LSAT of 159 is good 10 years or 20 years ago. People are dumber now.
@ 1:00
It's not that people are dumber, it is that schools in general have dumbed down the curriculum. UNLV includes a lot of basket weaving majors, those people apply to Boyd. And yes, if you check the box on one of the hot topic quota questions, you are in because Boyd has to be "inclusive".
Hell, If I were applying now I would check Black (because Ancestry says I have a small percentage) AND also check LBGT.
Voting for Goodey because they all seem the same, but Boyd '10 rocks the fucking house.
I think all 3 candidates are solid.
Vote for Marisa Rodriguez! She's a professional with great experience in the private and public sector, formerly head of the Latino Bar Association, and she founded the Andale 5k race/run to raise scholarship money for law school applicants. She's an asset to the legal community as it is, and she'll represent us well on the BoG. And no, I am not Marisa hahaha
I don't care about any of that. I do care about keeping an over reaching bar in check from proposing stupid things like random audits, mandatory insurance, reciprocity etc.
Agreed on Marisa. She'd be great.
My mistake, I thought you wanted to hear about a candidate's diverse job experience.
I want the small firm, anti-establishment candidate.
I'm none of the above (convincing, I know…), and also think Marisa is a great choice. She has significant leadership experience and is quite active in the community (more than one would assume from the amount of time she's been barred), and is just a genuinely awesome human. I donated to and participated in the Andale 5k event that 10:29 AM mentioned, and was impressed by Marisa's outreach, fundraising, and event planning/oversight skills. Dealing with attorneys is about as fun as herding cats, and she did it easily and thoughtfully. Not sure what campaign materials are out there for her, but she will be a solid BOG member.
Voting for Marisa.
Checking the bios for the three BOG candidates, it is mainly standard fare where they emphasize their qualifications and experience.
Only one candidate alludes to any sort of possible change or improvements–general references to diversity, and making the Bar more responsive, etc.
But none of them address the obvious elephant in the room–that rank and file bar members, those who are working yeoman attorneys of solo or small practice but without much juice, influence or name recognition, have zero voice in a BOG that they perceive is dominated by larger prominent firms and juiced-in candidates.
Whether those complaints are an exaggeration or an over-simplification of the reality is somewhat besides the point. They have in fact become the reality that hundreds of working attorneys believe to be true, and we see a lot of such complaints on this blog and others.
For none of the three candidates to even allude to that, but to instead play it safe with a tedious recitation of experience and qualifications, gives little or no hope that any of these candidates(despite all being relatively young females, and two of the three appearing to be people of diversity beyond their gender) will truly represent any "hope and change" for the small practitioner without a voice.
And those small, rank-and-file practitioners compose the majority of licensed attorneys in our county. They still perceive they are disaffected.
From a personal stand point, none of it means much to be as I never expected the Bar to be a responsive or helpful bureaucracy. I never perceived them as an ally. I viewed them as something that I had to pay dues to, and attend their CLE seminars, and to try to avoid discipline proceedings with them.
But for those who are much less cynical, and who want and expect a responsive BOG, I feel really badly for them that it is just business as usual, and always will be.
So, although all there choices are seemingly "solid"(as a poster describes them)as to pedigree, qualifications and experience, nothing will change.
How do we know? Again, just read their bios.
Meet the new bosses. Same as the old bosses.
11:08–I really hope you are wrong about all this, but I'm not sure you are.
Over the last couple of weeks on this blog I have noticed the smugness of the woke e.g., the post a couple days ago about the binary view of posters, the post a few days ago about older people losing political allies because of their views. The woke, PC, cancelling, liberals delight that conservatives are repulsed at their values (LBGT, transgender, abortion, 2nd Amend, etc.). But remember that this has been a trend for literally thousands of years. And thus it is very likely that those wokesters of today will face things that are repulsive to them today. Perhaps they will be forced to support incest or pedophilia or something equally as repulsive to them. Would it surprise anyone if 50 years from now some super-woker of the future said, "WTF, you didn't sleep with your daughter? You shouldn't be able to be a lawyer with that kind of attitude." It is exactly the same thing as "WTF, you don't support gay "rights," you shouldn't be a lawyer." They are just different values at different times. So delight in us conservatives throwing up in our mouths right now over Biden/liberalism because someday you may taste that bile too.
You may be right, but for now I will point out how disgusting it is to equate incest with LGBT rights. There's no common ground there, you're just gross.
Fuck you, asshole.
I stand with 12:03
Fuck you, asshole. And fuck 12:11 too.
12:03 back. I have no interest in winning over those of you who disagree and could find no other words than swearing. But I will ask you to consider that what is repulsive changes over time. I am quite sure I do things now that would have been very, very repulsive many years ago. For example, I am white and my wife is black. I love her very much but I'll bet there was a time I would have even been killed for this. Even today, we sometimes get some foul looks. I drink alcohol. There are places in the world where this very day I could be killed for this (think some strict Islamic places). And to 12:08 if you think that the thought of gayness back in the 1950s was less "gross" than incest is to you, then you simply were not around back then. You may not agree, but go open a book on Mesoamerican human sacrifice (no doubt repulsive to you) but recent studies propose (my undergrad was anthropology) that the general population was not repulsed by it. So open your mind please to the relativeness of values in humans. P.S. I'm completely disregarding religious aspects, morality, etc.
Fuck the anti-lgbtqi.
@12:08, 12:03 and 12:41
Good examples of why there can't be a discussion about anything that is anti woke or critical of a point of view. Because people like the replies mentioned shout down diverse views. Not very adult, and hypocritical about claiming inclusiveness as a principle.
PS: I am not 12:03.
12:03 – fuck off. When you're done…go outside and fuck off there. Then walk down the street and fuck off some more. When you get to the end of the street, just keep fucking off.
>Would it surprise anyone if 50 years from now some super-woker of the future said, "WTF, you didn't sleep with your daughter? You shouldn't be able to be a lawyer with that kind of attitude."
Yeah, it would surprise me, because it's completely different than two consenting adults getting married.
Move along troll
1:21. This is 12:03. As a thick-skinned attorney, I simply laugh at your theatrics. Do you have anything intelligent to say to rebut my thought that repulsiveness is often relative? Anything? Or do you exist just to be an example to prove that there is simply no talking to the woke. I'm here, let's have a discussion. Let's show our fellow attorneys we can do this. Reset your mind and be civil and explain how repulsiveness is not relative or changing through time. Thank you.
The woke left can indeed be quite shrill. Being overly sensitive to the perceived faults of others to the point of obsession is dangerous and useless. It causes one to stagnate. Humans need to engage in critical self evaluation and serve their fellows in order to evolve and grow. The woke left obsessively criticize others, take much, and give little. That's a sad way to live which will ultimately result in depression and dissatisfaction.
Fuck off with your self-righteousness, nobody cares about your sky is falling chicken little crocodile tears about the next generation tolerating more than your generation ever tolerated.
You just got old. It happens. Stop taking it out on the kids who want to test the rules of conformity and expand their boundaries. They will be bitching in 40 years about the next generation being too liberal.
It is old news. Tired. Sad. Pathetic in a lot of ways.
4:16 has me confused. I thought the problem is the new generation is just mindlessly repeating what the internet and media tell them to? Intolerance now is beyond what I read about in the dark ages. Thought police everywhere. I yearn for a time when I could sit in a dorm room with a diverse group of kids and watch eddie murphy skewer women, fat people, gays, and so on. Those days are gone. Is that good?
This is not about the "woke left." This is about the center and reasonable right. The left and reasonable right have moved away decades ago from child brides, incest, pedophilia and child trafficking. LGBTQ rights are embraced by both the left, the middle and a fair amount of the reasonable right and libertarian elements. None of these elements are gravitating anything other than away from acts the victimize the powerless and protect the liberties of free, consenting adults. The values that you espouse are as antiquated as slavery and burning at the stake. No one takes delight at the values that you are espousing; reasonable people do feel fear and sadness at whatever darkness continues to pervade your views. As you say, this evolution is thousands of years in the making. Economic conservatives don't follow the repressive views that are being espoused.
I am the poster from a few days ago complaining about the binary view of posters (right v. wrong, day v. night, black v. white). I have not posted in this thread today. 12:03 completely missed my point. I am sick and tired of the “woke” crowd making everything a binary choice, i.e. right v. wrong. Everything in life is subject to nuance and shades of gray. Cop shoots someone equals cop bad. No, that’s not true. The cop may be bad, the cop may not be bad, the cop may be a racist and the shoot was good, the cop may not be a racist and the shoot was bad, and the thousand nuances in-between.
The “woke” defund the police crowd is a bunch of morons. Yes there are problems with policing in America that need to be fixed. There are also problems with 13 year old kids carrying guns on the street. There are problems with people not getting into police cars and passively resisting. There are problems with 20 year old kids without outstanding warrants trying to run from cops. There are problems with POS cops playing Simon Says under penalty of death. (Google Daniel Shaver, Philip Brailsford or Charles Langley and watch that video and read the stories. Never heard of it? Probably because Shaver was white and it did not fit the “woke” media narrative. This video will make your blood boil. Fuck Brailsford and Langley. I hope they get ass cancer). There are a 100 examples that can be given and every example needs to be evaluated separately and not in the context of some “woke” baseline.
That being said, I do think there are some binary choices that can in fact be made, i.e. right v. wrong. For example, if you are a racists you are wrong. People may say hey, wait a minute, a 150 years ago everyone was racist and attitudes must be considered in the context of the time being discussed. Yes, a 150 years ago a lot of people were racist. By the same token there were a whole lot of people that were not racist, and knew that slavery and treating humans that happened to have black skin like shit was wrong.
I don’t believe in second class citizens, subject to exceptions or felons, and un-convicted pedos. If you are a piece of shit (50 year old racist, 20 year old gang banging criminal, or just a plain old POS) I don’t have to associate with you.
Re “repulsiveness is often relative” and “changing through time”: As noted above, 150 years ago a lot of people did not find slavery repulsive. A lot of people found it very repulsive. The people that accepted slavery were, plain and simple wrong. The “repulsiveness” of slavery has indeed changed through time. However, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong a 150 years ago.
9:01–The main reasons why some people pose matters as right/wrong, yin/yang, good/bad, with no shades of gray or nuance are as follows;
1. Some people unfortunately lack the intelligence, analytical ability or life experience to analyze matters beyond simplistic extremes–and thus are programmed to conclude that something is either good or bad, right or wrong, with no in between.
2. Other people might in fact possess sufficient innate intelligence and analytical ability, but still pose everything as either right/wrong, good/bad, because the issues involved are so emotional to them that their analysis and intellect gets highjacked by such raw emotions. Such hot button issues to such people may be abortion, religion, gun control, political party loyalty, etc.
3. Other people who might otherwise have the intelligence or analytical ability, become affected, not necessarily by the factors I list in #2, above, but more from a general, self-righteous, dogmatic,sanctimonious nature–i.e. they perceive they are so righteous and better than others, which causes them to become unyielding, intolerant of any human frailty and failings, and in fact rigidly intolerant of anyone whose views differ form theirs.
4. Another group of people, who otherwise might have the analytical ability and intelligence to see nuance and shades of gray, are affected by factors in both #2 nd #3, above.
I know all the above because I am always right, everyone who doesn't see it my way is always wrong, and there is no in between–all of which suggests that I probably fit most snugly into category#3
9:01 You belie your own point. There are nuances and shades of gray and yet you then make absolute statements as if all felons are gangbangers and pedophiles. Slavery is absolutely wrong but a system where people have to work for $8 an hour while paying rent and childcare is OK. "'Defund the Police' crowd are a bunch of morons" when many in that movement are actually advocating for greater support for police by moving mental health interventions away from the police. There are shades in everything.
To 8:23: If you are a felon my view is f you. You cant play by the rules, you cost the "system" money and time and you most likely harmed someone. I am tired of paying for you, your antics and your kids. If you are a pedo – f you. Sincerly 9:01
To 9:09: You have an $8 an hour job? You obviously cant afford kids. Dont have kids. Dont make me pay for your kids cuz you cant afford them. Lets stop coddling felons, pedos, and people that want to have kids and make me pay for them.
Average person commits 3-4 felonies per day. But sure. I guess everyone is a second class citizen to you in your book.
https://ips-dc.org/three-felonies-day/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20Harvard%20University%20professor%20Harvey%20Silverglate%20estimates,punished%20by%20the%20criminal%20justice%20system%20at%20all.
9:37 am – be better than a felon
There should be a NONE OF THESE option for BOG. Respectfully I dont want a politician on the board. I don't want a climber or future judge. I want someone who 1) respects the profession 2) respects its practitioners 3) committed to the goals of the profession. I don't want vague CLE requirements, NSC lackeys, or followers of staff. I want to see more transparency with the Bar. Better bar meetings, and a support system. How about a forms library like other states? (full access to practice manuals, research etc). Or
A friend of mine relocated to Texas last year to be closer to his elderly parents and he couldn't stop promoting how awesome their State Bar of Texas was. They have their financial report available on their website (https://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutUs/OurFinances/Finances.htm) They have a regularly updated practice manual section you can subscribe to monthly or annually (https://www.texasbarpractice.com/texas-bar-books-online/available-titles/). Their legal aid equivalent is statewide but LACSN was comparable. AND – get this, they have their Annual Meeting each year IN TEXAS so that more attorneys can attend.
Nevada lawyers don't want to go to an annual meeting in Nevada. They tried it once in 1872 and nobody showed up.
Or so I am told.
Annual bar meeting in Carson. City, please, I have the hots for Elissa Cadish
The bar convention in Furnace Creek was great and close to home.
That convention was fun-during the Gundersonian days.
You need to vote out all current BOGs then. Including Goodey.
12:45 said "I want to see more transparency with the Bar. Better bar meetings, and a support system."
I want to pay as little as required in Bar dues and for the Bar to leave me alone. "Better bar meetings"? I have never been to one. What makes a bar meeting good?
"More transparency" — as to what? As to what they do with our money? As to how they decide what punishments to hand out for violations? As to how they kiss the asses of the large firms?
Just leave me alone and let me work!
While I do appreciate thinking I am better connected than I actually am, I am assuming those posting that I'm the "Supreme Court" candidate do not actually know me and are basing their statements on the fact that I was previously on the Board. I am the rank and file member of the bar that you say you want. I am a solo practitioner with no real political connections. I have been running my own firm for almost 8 years now, so I see how rule changes and actions of the Bar affect my business and daily practice. And I want to be a voice for people like me.
When I was elected previously, I ran on the premise that I was against random audits and mandatory malpractice. That is still true, but, to my knowledge, those aren't current issues. If that changes, if elected, I will vote against those propositions.
As for bar dues, I could make empty campaign promises, and say I want to lower bar dues. Would I like to pay less? Of course. But I do not think it is a realistic possibility. What I am committed to though, is making sure our bar dues are not being wasted (I served on the audit committee for that purpose) and are not increased. Again, to my knowledge, there is no current proposal to raise our dues, but if that becomes an issue, I would vote against it.
As to reciprocity, I have not seen a proposal that I would be in favor of.
Finally, transparency is something I put in my statement, because I think transparency is important. I have been thinking alot about what that actually means and how it could be accomplished. I think the first step is to make the board meetings more easily accessible to the members through live stream and by making the agenda available to the members ahead of the meeting. I also think the budget/financial statements should be more readily available.
One thing I have always tried to do is make myself available for the members of the bar, and I will continue to do so, even if not elected. As cheesy as it sounds, I really did go into this profession to help people, and when I can do that, it's my favorite part about this job. Throughout the campaign and after, whether elected or not, you can always reach out to me at my office and I will do whatever I can to help.
Good on you for posting here. I say that takes courage. You earned my vote.
Yes. Thank you.
Yes, no thank you. You are a current member of BOG. You habe done nothing. Be proud. You are a goof Nebafs Supreme Court candidate. Be proud!
Have and good
I tend to support the statements of 11:08.
But that said, Ms. Goodey, at 3:49, has now done a fine job in expanding well beyond her bio. material, and is offering thoughts and proposals of legitimate substance, with a reasonable degree of details and specificity.
Since she took the time to do so, and seems to have good ideas and commits to be accessible and responsive to rank-and-file attorneys, I'll be supporting her.
I can't know to what degree she will follow through on these promises, but she did offer a detailed response, and she seems quite sincere, so I say we should take a chance on her.
Full disclosure: Never met her or spoke to her, and no one asked me to support her.
Just like her response, or perhaps more to the point, the fact she bothered offering a response.
Instead of better bar meetings can we have better meetings at the bar? You call the bar.
#freemoscowmitch
#freebonniebulla
#freetheannualbardues