- Quickdraw McLaw
- 78 Comments
- 62 Views
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection finished its interviews yesterday and announced the names they would put forward to Governor Sandoval as nominees to fill Departments 15 and 20. Out of 25 applications, the four nominees are:
Department 15
- Mary F. Chapman, 51, Las Vegas, with Law Office of Mary F. Chapman, Ltd.
- Joseph Paul Hardy, Jr., 42, Henderson, with Gordon & Rees
- Louis Eric Johnson, 54, Las Vegas, with U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada
Department 20
- Karl Wesley Armstrong, 56, Las Vegas, with Ray Lego & Associates
- Joseph Paul Hardy, Jr., 42, Henderson, with Gordon & Rees
- Louis Eric Johnson, 54, Las Vegas, with U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada
Congratulations to the nominees! What do you think about the Commission’s selection? Do you have any advice for Governor Sandoval on selecting from these names?
On another note, the NCAA college basketball tournament starts today which means tons of media outlets doing stories on work place productivity? Does it affect your productivity?
When it comes to watching NCAA March Madness games…
Joe Hardy………Party Time! Perhaps your friend "Bow-Tie" will throw you a party at the Leatherneck club.
I hope Sandoval does the right thing and skips over you.
A good illustration as to why an appointment system is in no way preferable to elections. What a joke of a list.
In a world where Abbi Silver is now an appellate judge, this list makes sense in a sad way. Maybe the thing is that rational people prefer regular practice as attorneys.
What wonderful humans are on the commission who selected the candidates?
The Commission members are:
Supreme Court Chief Justice James W. Hardesty, Chair.
Valerie Cooney, Carson City, past executive director of Volunteer Attorneys for Rural Nevada (State Bar appointee)
Jeffrey Gilbert, Henderson, veteran gaming executive (Governor appointee)
Jesse Gutierrez, Sparks, former executive director of Nevada Hispanic Services (Governor appointee)
Gregory Kamer, Las Vegas, with Kamer Zucker Abbott (State Bar appointee)
Jasmine Mehta, Carson City, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (State Bar appointee)
Leslie M. Williams, Schurz, Washoe County Senior Services (Governor appointee)
Monte Miller, Las Vegas, Keystate Companies, (Temporary member)
Bernard Zadrowski, Las Vegas, Clark County District Attorney’s Office (Temporary member)
Bernie Zadrowski, he is a Republican winner!
This is a slight to women, thank you State Bar and Hardesty, is your legacy!
Way to go Bar President, Board of Governors, systematic discrimination that I pay for!
this
I am keeping this commish list in my office, for my permanent record. Does not present Hardy or Johnson in a good light.
I will buy someone Boo Berry cereal if we get detailed, truthful, and honest conversation as to among and between the commish as to why these candidates were selected?
Possibly the worst candidates ever.
It seems a bit weird to send the same names for each seat to the governor pretty much — were these candidates so terrific or the others so bad?
You have to consider that the commission has some individuals appointed by Sandoval. The commission wants to give him names that he will want to appoint. Joe Hardy and Eric Johnson are solid picks for Sandoval. The commission obviously thought they were the best and wanted to strongly emphasize that to the governor by putting them up twice. I don't know much about Eric Johnson (other than he is Judge Johnson's husband), but I've had experience with Joe Hardy and think he'd make a good judge compared to many of those applicants. I'm happy to see that the commission passed over Bulla. She may very well be a good judge, but I think she needs to run and earn it that way.
Symbolically it is too bad that the two white men get double nominations while the other two each only get one shot; it seems like tokenism though knowing the commission members I'm sure it was intended that way.
12:35 here – meant "was not intended that way" – arg.
I am sure it wasn't. Just like I am sure that the constant discrimination that women in this profession receive on a constant basis isn't either.
Giving a recommendation to someone with almost no trial experience who vice chairs a gay-lez organization versus men and women with years of trial and court experience makes no sense and does not give us the most qualified jurists on the bench.
"a gay-lez organization" Stopped reading at this point and disregarded everything said before it. You're an idiot.
Here, here. Someone's sexual orientation is irrelevant.
What 9:16 and 9:36 said. ^^^^
@9:16 am, @9:36 am, @9:55am: you are my people 😉
which one chairs the gay-lez organization? (Is "gay-lez" a new term now?)
"gay-lez" is short for Gay Laissez-faire. It's an movement dedicated to staying happy and letting others do what they will.
That should be the definition. In other words, let's quit noticing if the finalists are gay, female, white, old, Mormon and concentrate on whether they are (a) lazy or (b) morons, which are my two biggest gripes about many of our current judges. And they fall into all of those other categories I mentioned.
Well, now I know that Hardesty is a moron.
I agree. What a strange/mediocre list. But then take a look at who is on the Commission – not one single individual who is over at the courthouse in the trenches on a regular basis. With the possible exception of Hardesty, none of them have any business picking judges.
9:16 here. My "agree" comment was typed before 9:14 posted. Sexual orientation is as irrelevant as gender, race, or religion would be to this discussion.
Shutting off tournament basketball. Tired of discriminatory statements made by ESPN 1100, where we discriminate against women, races, and we don't believe in the proper care of our animals.
Me, too. Thought of advertising with ESPN 1100, but that is not happening. Be afraid I would lose potential clients, ruin political aspirations.
One woman out of six, good job guys. Way to represent the bar and the electorate!
Why? Women are more than proportionally represented in the 8th Judicial District Judiciary. Quit pushing an agenda that doesn't reflect the current state of our jurists. It's tired.
Oh, like your opinion is the majority. You are tired, and your views are antiquated.
Oh, c'mon… Hoping that someone skips over Joe? That's just jealousy talking. Joe's a good guy and he'll make a fine judge (and, no, this isn't Joe). He's got the right temperament for it, I will say that.
Think Joe would make a good judge, also think there should be more women as candidates.
Joe would make a great judge – I have worked with him on several matters – he's smart, able to see issues, act reasonably and above all, be professional. He has the right temperament and intelligence for the job. And no..this is not Joe…
I would like to see Mary get it. She is a hard worker, and she is smart.
Mary Chapman stated she only had two criminal trials for experience. Other applicants had a full career of court experience (but not all other applicants). She is of course female, vocally gay and ethnic. It seems the Commission gave her 3 token stamps of approval without regard to less than average qualifications. The purpose of the Commission is not to be PC, it should only vote on qualifications. One Commission member was gushing how they both had twins, this in not impartial voting.
Justice Hardesty stated point blank to the voting Commissioners that it would be a good idea to forward Karl Armstrong's name to the Governor "for diversity" reasons. William Horne stated one of his attributes would be "diversity." Since our President is black for Heaven's sake, when can we simply proceed with qualifications and relevant experience as opposed to irelevant re-disposed skin color competitive advantages in government jobs?
Ethnic and vocally gay, nice.
Wow, you are an idiot. William Horne is way more than his ethnicity. Just because Mr. Obama is president, I guess women, African-Americans, Jews, Latinos, Asian-Pacific, LGBT, Asians, Middle Eastern people don't get discriminated against. Go back under your rock! ( I am sorry to anyone who I forgot to name).
Yes, it's important to level the playing field. If we only counted ability and experience, no woman or whatever could ever break the glass ceiling, right? Brilliant. What's more progressive than a quota system. Let's see, 5% set aside for successful straight white males; 35% set aside for womyn of lighter skin; 25% set aside for womyn of darker hue; 15% set aside for males of color; 2% for transgendered men->women; 3% for transgendered women->men; etc. Who gets to decide the quotas?
Obviously, not you. You think people don't get discriminated against because we have an African-American president.
Not me? Then who? And why is discrimination itself bad? I discriminate against brunettes in favor of blondes. Is that "wrong"? (What if I said I prefer white girls over black ones? Or thin ones over fat ones?) Clients generally prefer an older jewish guy with a bit of white hair over a young Mexican with the ink still wet on his diploma. Is that "wrong"? Women generally favor high income men for marriage over low income men. Is that "wrong"? Let's face it, the President rose to the White House (<–ha ha) because he is half black. If he was a white boy from the upper east side, he'd have had zero chance. Zip. Nada. Is that "wrong" or "right" and why?
Errr….Mary is ethnic?
My hope, although I am cynical, is that these idiotic, discriminatory posts are not made by attorneys or judges.
Come on — if you're going to do a poll, use local phenom Wedgies (even the White House does!)
clearly you don't read the blog if you think that would work here.
The recent round of judicial selection interviews emphasizes that we DO NOT WANT or NEED an an
APPOINTED SYSTEM. The interview process and the uninformed members of the Judicial Selection Commission ("what will you do about frivolous lawsuits" was one of many stupid questions) shows that an appointed system will only give us judges who are diversity candidates and not qualified. Moreover, It was very lopsided for them to appoint the same candidates for the two spots. Does this guarantee that the two candidates (Hardy and Johnson) will ultimately be appointed. Really, is this the best we can do? The interviews and the selection were only the icing on the cake. The lobbying and the behind the scenes maneuvers determined much of the outcome before the candidates arrived for their interviews. The process is more political than a political campaign or election.
I really want someone like Marquis, or some other Republicans stripping me of my constitutional fundamental right to vote, and appointing judges! Welcome to the nut house, people!
My only hope is that an appointment system would avoid judges playing favorites to attorneys who donate to their campaigns. We've seen the crop of attorneys who campaigned recently and i can't say it's any better than these candidates. In fact, there were quite a few goons who had no business running for judge. I think an appointment system is the lesser of two evils.
Actually no. Judges do not avoid playing favorites in an appointed system. Only one party or lawyer knows that. They play favorites because they owe favors to firms, attorneys, and groups who brought pressure to get them appointed. I worked in an appointed system that was terrible. The judges are nicer to the parties and the attorneys here in Nevada. In an appointed system they are mean spirited because the appointment determines their job–nothing else. If you like being sanctioned, work for an appointed system.
If Eric Johnson has appeared in state court it would have been over 25 years ago. He's tried cases but he is known as the biggest discovery violator in the U.S. Attorney's office
Um, is this going to be Keeping Up With the Kardashians at the Eighth Judicial if we have both husband and wife as sitting judges. A little too inbred for me.
oh, oh, please, I want to play bruce jenner
You clearly haven't met Eric Johnson
You are clearly a Johnson
I know Kanye West and he is no Kanye West
She has a certain look about her that suggests Mr. Johnson does take care of his end of the marital business, if you know what I mean. Good for him and her. Satisfied judges make better decisions.
Gross!
In my view, this type of dialogue is not appropriate. If there's a concern with having yet another prosecutor on the bench, or if there is a question about the propriety of having spouses sit on the same bench, that might be an appropriate debate. However, humor based on such private matters should not be so publicly posted on a law blog. That's just my opinion. Admittedly, based on these postings, it appears no one shares my opinion.
I do think Susan Johnson is an outstanding judge, and Eric Johnson has a long, impressive record as a federal prosecuter. Whether that necessarily translates to him becoming an outstanding judge is very difficult to say. Looks like it is likely that we will all get a chance to find out.
Thank you, Judge Johnson,
Judge Johnson, your ESP abilities are uncanny. It is nice to know that the selection committee is independent and unbiased in their selection methodologies.
I think there are serious conflict issues if we have multiple family members as judges on the same court. Are we going to have their daughter on there now? Did we forget the whole Judge Jones debacle? If Johnson gets the appointment, our judiciary process will be an even bigger joke in this county.
What, precisely, is the conflict? I'm not sure there is one. It's odd but why? I don't see a legal or ethical problem except I suppose that they'll be tempted to talk about their cases to each other but so what?
Judges are suppose to independent, unbiased. Having multiple family members in the same Court, not professional. If the husband wants to go for another position in another court, fine. They divorce, problem. Judicial resources are already limited.
Plus the respectability of the bench; what little there is left. It is bad enough we already have mini-dynasties down at the RJC. We should have a balanced, drama free judiciary. Biases and business/socio-political relationships usually run in the family, too. If we have judges who are spouses, or children on the same bench; it is ripe for disaster. Our pool of talent in the legal field is not so limited that we need to make the bench a "family affair."
What happens if I pre-empt Judge Johnson and the other Judge Johnson gets assigned the case or I have another case pending with the Judge Johnson I don't pre-empt? You think Judges don't know who pre-empts them?
You know what? Susan is going to the Supreme Court bench, so its not going to present a "conflict" for long. If they don't appoint her she will grab it. Go girl!
"Conflict" not for long, cute. I use to like Susan Johnson, now I don't. Family is getting a little delusional and power hungry. She ran for election this year, and not even two months later puts her name for the intermediate court. That is misleading. Good luck to anyone who supports or the rest of the family. You go girl!
OK. You are going fora life risking brain surgery. One mistake and you die. Do you want the surgeon with 35 years of experience or the one doing this only twice before, results unknown? They are placing 2 criminal court judges. Joe Hardy does not have criminal trial experience, nor does Karl Armstrong who works on civil cases with Travelers Insurance, correct? Please correct me if I am wrong. Ms. Chapman stated she only had 2 criminal trials under her belt, but she once was a police officer in Florida. This just leaves the AUSA, Johnson (assuming he is in their criminal division, but he could be with their civil division? ?) So it really just leaves one qualified criminal jurist candidate. God bless anyone appearing in these people's courtroom if they have decades less experience than you.
Yes, Eric Johnson blows the other 3 away when it comes to criminal prosecution experience. Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Johnson led the 2006 criminal prosecution of Rizzolo, and contended that Rizzolo had concealed from probation officers a series of lucrative financial transactions, including several with offshoretrust accounts. Many of the transactions were related to $1 million from the sale of a Philadelphia stripclub one day before his release, Johnson said. Johnson also accused Rizzolo of failing to pay the Internal Revenue Service morethan $2.5 million in back taxes.
Ms. Chapman specializes in employment and business law. Mr. Hardy and Mr. Armstrong are sweeties with mostly civil law backgrounds. Unless they are changing the scope of the assigned docket to civil, Mr. Johnson is most qualified out of the 4.
There's a difference between prosecuting someone and conducting trials since so many defendants plead. What actual trials has Johnson led as first chair? I can't think of any in recent history.
I believe Armstrong was a prosecutor for the A.G.'s office 20 years ago. Don't think that qualifies as much REAL criminal experience.
Eric has tried a lot of cases-he has spent the last 20 years in the Strike Force or OCDF (Organized Crime, Drugs and something)
Is this the same Eric Johnson that went to the strip clubs and received favors during an investigation of the owner and was simultaneously teaching ethics at Boyd?
I just googled this — which I might suggest that you do the same before disparaging someone with a bunch of salacious BS. Johnson was investigated based on allegations by Mike Galardi, and then cleared. Johnson stated that Galardi recanted the allegations. See http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040721/news_1n21vegas.html.
Electability is a huge factor too. Mr. Johnson's wife knows how to run a helluva campaign! She can train him to do the same.
And from the Trials and Tribulations of Bowtie on 03-17:
Today, I have an important trial. A biker was hit by a cop, and the cop lied to cover himself.
So, while getting ready, I was singing the Rambo theme song and mimicking the scene where he armed himself.
Instead of guns, knives, ammo and a head band, with full sound effects, I armed myself with pens, my iPhone, USB flash drive, orthopedic pelvic belt and a bow tie.
I'm ready!
Oh yeah…did I mention that my client is black and this cop's Facebook page had multiple Nazi posts?