Still no one running in 15? Jesus I have tons of baggage but he cannot go without a challenger. Please someone run against him so I can give you my money.
In a related story, someone spotted OBC Hooge wearing a tiny bib as he learns to eat for himself for the first time. He dropped strained peas on the floor at a meeting this morning as he tried his first words, "guilty" "they're all guilty." Shortly afterwards, he was seen trying to take his first steps toward a disbarment hearing where a lawyer was 30 seconds late to a continuance hearing because the lawyer stopped to help a busload of Nuns change a tire.
Not sure I understand this comment. Do you mean that someone should have to have a contested campaign, with all of the "fundraising nastyness" involved in order to deserve a seat? What about qualifications?
Eric Abbott is Stephanie Abbott (of Clark County Bar Association) husband. Was with Teddy Parker for long time and then went in house. I like Eric but Coffing has more experience to be a judge.
John Hunt just filed against Holthus. Hunt has a lot of connections, past leadership positons in the Democratic party, and, in my view, good fund raising abilities and perhaps a good chunk of his own money available to spend.
He was a finalist for the D.A. appointment, a finalist for District Court appointment, past candidate for state-wide office(AG), etc.
That all being said, Holthus was able to knock out the incumbent(Bailus).
and certainly has factors in her favor as well, including that she was able to win a seat from the outside as achallenger, defeat an incumbent, and now she is the incumbent, and thus presumably stronger as a candidate than she was when she was a challenger.
Bailus was kind of a lackluster candidate. This could be a horse race if Hunt is serious and raises the bucks. I've never been in front of Holthus so I have no idea how she is on civil cases.
Two words: Holthus is BREW-TALL on civil cases. Does not know what a "firm setting" is in other departments. Does not know trial procedure. She is rough.
That's all I need to hear 12:41. These judges with no civil experience scare me. I've been in front of Silva and I thought she was actually quite good, but that would be the exception and not the rule I think. Voting for Hunt.
Guest
anonymous
January 16, 2020 6:31 pm
Someone filed against Trevor Atkin. Not sure I understand the reasoning there. Will be supporting Trevor.
Guest
Anonymous
January 16, 2020 6:34 pm
It is still early folks, a lot of people will wait to the last minute to file. It almost feels like a 1970's Kentucky horse track.
Guest
Anonymous
January 16, 2020 6:43 pm
From the outside, it is really interesting (and perplexing) following these filings. It seems like some of the races that should be lower-hanging fruit are barely touched, while lots of people are attacking races that (on the surface) look like real challenges. I guess I'll never know the behind-the-scene machinations, but I hope it works out so that we don't have any races where there are only bad options.
I think part of the issue is that all of us have different ideas of what is low hanging fruit. You don't say who you think, but the lowest hanging fruit are the open seats and the judges who scored pitifully on the judging the judges. Those are all challenged. While the majority of incumbents are currently unchallenged, it is hard to know who is low hanging fruit. Just because you don't like one judge, doesn't mean they are low hanging. Take Susan Johnson for example. She had those comments about Trump that could make her vulnerable, but does it actually? Or what about Betsy Gonzalez? Obviously Sheldon Adelson doesn't like her, but no one wants to run against her because she is not very vulnerable. Do you agree?
I would certainly agree with you that an open seat is low hanging fruit, but that joke of a survey "judging the judges" is meaningless to anyone with half a brain. Not only is it statistically flawed by its pitiful response rate, lack of representative sampling, lack of randomness, lack of inclusiveness of sampling, and lack of verification that responses have even appeared before the subject judge. Assuming that the LVRJ actually wanted to do a survey like this and have it maintain some semblance of scientific validity, they should post pollsters in the hallways outside the courtrooms for 1-2 days per week over multiple weeks and poll like every 5th person exiting the courtroom after a hearing.
A protocol such as that would more likely capture the opinions of attorneys, pro se litigants, represented litigants, witnesses, observers, etc. The various "customers" of the respective judge that have competing interests/views with respect to the subject of the study.
An alternative study method which would be a much more valid methodology would be to hire a panel of retired judges (preferably from outside the jurisdiction to eliminate biases), provide those reviewers the pleadings the judge had to work with, a copy of the JAVS video of any hearing related to the case being reviewed, and the judge's decision. This would provide an objective means of reviewing the performance of the judge, by an individual that has walked a mile in the subject's shoes, by someone qualified to render an opinion yet has no interest in the outcome of the study.
As it is currently constituted, the "Judging the Judges" is about as valid as having H.S. students judging their teachers, with the teacher's retention/raises being determined by the outcomes. I would be willing to bet that the teachers that give no homework, multiple choice/open book tests, take no attendance, allow the kids to play video games/socialize during class, etc., would score much higher than strict disciplinarian type teachers that give nightly homework, essay type/closed book tests, etc. The former type teachers would be far more popular with the students thus receive much higher scores, but the latter type would actually cause the students to learn more of the subject matter.
That survey as it is currently constituted is great for creating headlines, selling papers, creating controversy, allowing attorneys to vent their spleens, etc. but is of almost no actual value in educating the public as to the quality of their judiciary.
For example: Dept. 2 has an incumbent and at least two challengers. Meanwhile, Dept. 3 is an open seat and has a total of 2 people running. Then Dept. 4, apparently open now, has 4 candidates. Without getting into each candidate's merits (or lack thereof), it's odd on its face.
I take judging judges and wipe it with it. Seems like only a small block of Summerlin firms voted this go around. When it read it, it was like a campaign poster for the "highest rated."
Guest
Anonymous
January 16, 2020 6:45 pm
Is Bluth up for re-election? She should draw an opponent, she is nice, but her staff, no. She is inexperienced.
I'm supporting all of the incumbents regardless of how bad they are as judges. All of you a-hole wannabees running against an incumbent will never get another courtesy from me because you're costing me money.
I am tired of having horse shit on the bench. Please file against incumbents, because I will vote for and promote you. The only incumbent who I will vote for is Denton. If you don't draw an opponent, I will not vote for you either. Do the same as me if you are tired of the shit show.
I hope someone else files in 28. Israel deserves every bit of his low rating and then some. Nasty disposition and wrong on the law more often than he's right. Jim Cavanaugh is a good guy, but I don't know that he's up for it. I guess we will see around this time tomorrow when things really start getting crazy.
Guest
anonymous
January 16, 2020 11:49 pm
As of right now, we are at 104 candidates. What is everyone's guess on where that number will be at 5:00 tomorrow? I'm going to say 120.
Looks like in 2014, we had about 27 candidates file on the last day. Given the filings so far, I don't see that many happening. I'll say we'll have 125.
Guest
Anonymous
January 16, 2020 11:53 pm
130
Guest
Anonymous
January 16, 2020 11:59 pm
Just imagine – at the end of the election, we could have Judges Marquis, Aurbach, and Coffing.
Now that you mention it….. 20 and 22 both should get an opponent. However 22 has been there a long time. But 20 is really bad in state court. He needs to going back to violating due process and constitutional rights in the Liberty Tower.
Your bigger races are still open, Pickering and Bulla. They are getting opponents.
Guest
Anonymous
January 17, 2020 1:54 am
Are you serious about Bare? That must mean you lost your shitty motion and didn't have the balls to appeal it. Because you probably would have lost that too! All the attorneys I know on both sides of the fence would disagree with you when it comes to him. I was in front him this past month and found him prepared and articulate on every case. I lost my motion but I didn't wine, I just listened to what he said and now I know what I'm going to do differently when I refile it.
Is no one going to run against Kishner? Wouldn't that at least be a way of avoiding appearing in front of her for awhile?
Guest
anonymous
January 17, 2020 3:28 pm
She’s absolutely insufferable on the bench, and enjoys making everything more time consuming and cumbersome than it needs to be. On the other hand, I think her batting average is probably better than most in terms of getting the substantive rulings right. I’d consider voting for a viable challenger but doubt there will be one.
Still no one running in 15? Jesus I have tons of baggage but he cannot go without a challenger. Please someone run against him so I can give you my money.
Attorney, please.
In a related story, someone spotted OBC Hooge wearing a tiny bib as he learns to eat for himself for the first time. He dropped strained peas on the floor at a meeting this morning as he tried his first words, "guilty" "they're all guilty." Shortly afterwards, he was seen trying to take his first steps toward a disbarment hearing where a lawyer was 30 seconds late to a continuance hearing because the lawyer stopped to help a busload of Nuns change a tire.
Erik Abbott filed in dept 5 Who the hell is that?
Don't know who he is, but glad to see he filed against Coffing. No one deserves to get the job uncontested the first time.
Not sure I understand this comment. Do you mean that someone should have to have a contested campaign, with all of the "fundraising nastyness" involved in order to deserve a seat? What about qualifications?
Eric Abbott is Stephanie Abbott (of Clark County Bar Association) husband. Was with Teddy Parker for long time and then went in house. I like Eric but Coffing has more experience to be a judge.
Eric is a decent guy, but I think Terry Coffing is more qualified.
I haven't heard his name mentioned in ages.
John Hunt just filed against Holthus. Hunt has a lot of connections, past leadership positons in the Democratic party, and, in my view, good fund raising abilities and perhaps a good chunk of his own money available to spend.
He was a finalist for the D.A. appointment, a finalist for District Court appointment, past candidate for state-wide office(AG), etc.
That all being said, Holthus was able to knock out the incumbent(Bailus).
and certainly has factors in her favor as well, including that she was able to win a seat from the outside as achallenger, defeat an incumbent, and now she is the incumbent, and thus presumably stronger as a candidate than she was when she was a challenger.
Bailus was kind of a lackluster candidate. This could be a horse race if Hunt is serious and raises the bucks. I've never been in front of Holthus so I have no idea how she is on civil cases.
Two words: Holthus is BREW-TALL on civil cases. Does not know what a "firm setting" is in other departments. Does not know trial procedure. She is rough.
That's all I need to hear 12:41. These judges with no civil experience scare me. I've been in front of Silva and I thought she was actually quite good, but that would be the exception and not the rule I think. Voting for Hunt.
Someone filed against Trevor Atkin. Not sure I understand the reasoning there. Will be supporting Trevor.
It is still early folks, a lot of people will wait to the last minute to file. It almost feels like a 1970's Kentucky horse track.
From the outside, it is really interesting (and perplexing) following these filings. It seems like some of the races that should be lower-hanging fruit are barely touched, while lots of people are attacking races that (on the surface) look like real challenges. I guess I'll never know the behind-the-scene machinations, but I hope it works out so that we don't have any races where there are only bad options.
I think part of the issue is that all of us have different ideas of what is low hanging fruit. You don't say who you think, but the lowest hanging fruit are the open seats and the judges who scored pitifully on the judging the judges. Those are all challenged. While the majority of incumbents are currently unchallenged, it is hard to know who is low hanging fruit. Just because you don't like one judge, doesn't mean they are low hanging. Take Susan Johnson for example. She had those comments about Trump that could make her vulnerable, but does it actually? Or what about Betsy Gonzalez? Obviously Sheldon Adelson doesn't like her, but no one wants to run against her because she is not very vulnerable. Do you agree?
I would certainly agree with you that an open seat is low hanging fruit, but that joke of a survey "judging the judges" is meaningless to anyone with half a brain. Not only is it statistically flawed by its pitiful response rate, lack of representative sampling, lack of randomness, lack of inclusiveness of sampling, and lack of verification that responses have even appeared before the subject judge. Assuming that the LVRJ actually wanted to do a survey like this and have it maintain some semblance of scientific validity, they should post pollsters in the hallways outside the courtrooms for 1-2 days per week over multiple weeks and poll like every 5th person exiting the courtroom after a hearing.
A protocol such as that would more likely capture the opinions of attorneys, pro se litigants, represented litigants, witnesses, observers, etc. The various "customers" of the respective judge that have competing interests/views with respect to the subject of the study.
An alternative study method which would be a much more valid methodology would be to hire a panel of retired judges (preferably from outside the jurisdiction to eliminate biases), provide those reviewers the pleadings the judge had to work with, a copy of the JAVS video of any hearing related to the case being reviewed, and the judge's decision. This would provide an objective means of reviewing the performance of the judge, by an individual that has walked a mile in the subject's shoes, by someone qualified to render an opinion yet has no interest in the outcome of the study.
As it is currently constituted, the "Judging the Judges" is about as valid as having H.S. students judging their teachers, with the teacher's retention/raises being determined by the outcomes. I would be willing to bet that the teachers that give no homework, multiple choice/open book tests, take no attendance, allow the kids to play video games/socialize during class, etc., would score much higher than strict disciplinarian type teachers that give nightly homework, essay type/closed book tests, etc. The former type teachers would be far more popular with the students thus receive much higher scores, but the latter type would actually cause the students to learn more of the subject matter.
That survey as it is currently constituted is great for creating headlines, selling papers, creating controversy, allowing attorneys to vent their spleens, etc. but is of almost no actual value in educating the public as to the quality of their judiciary.
Judging the judges is the biggest joke. Case and point, Elissa Cadish.
For example: Dept. 2 has an incumbent and at least two challengers. Meanwhile, Dept. 3 is an open seat and has a total of 2 people running. Then Dept. 4, apparently open now, has 4 candidates. Without getting into each candidate's merits (or lack thereof), it's odd on its face.
Counterpoint to 11:37: Judge Israel.
I take judging judges and wipe it with it. Seems like only a small block of Summerlin firms voted this go around. When it read it, it was like a campaign poster for the "highest rated."
Is Bluth up for re-election? She should draw an opponent, she is nice, but her staff, no. She is inexperienced.
Todd Leventhal just filed against her.
Good, he has my vote and money.
I love Todd Leventhal – he helped me when I first started out – even sent me a great client – thanks Todd! Good luck buddy
Todd is a total phony–all talk.
Bluth has no business being on the bench.
I'm supporting all of the incumbents regardless of how bad they are as judges. All of you a-hole wannabees running against an incumbent will never get another courtesy from me because you're costing me money.
Thank you, judge.
I am tired of having horse shit on the bench. Please file against incumbents, because I will vote for and promote you. The only incumbent who I will vote for is Denton. If you don't draw an opponent, I will not vote for you either. Do the same as me if you are tired of the shit show.
Did anyone else hear about the request for Trial by Combat
http://loweringthebar.net/2020/01/kansas-man-seeks-trial-by-combat.html
I hope someone else files in 28. Israel deserves every bit of his low rating and then some. Nasty disposition and wrong on the law more often than he's right. Jim Cavanaugh is a good guy, but I don't know that he's up for it. I guess we will see around this time tomorrow when things really start getting crazy.
As of right now, we are at 104 candidates. What is everyone's guess on where that number will be at 5:00 tomorrow? I'm going to say 120.
Looks like in 2014, we had about 27 candidates file on the last day. Given the filings so far, I don't see that many happening. I'll say we'll have 125.
130
Just imagine – at the end of the election, we could have Judges Marquis, Aurbach, and Coffing.
Why are they still working over 70?
Aurbach and Coffing are 10s in pools of 3s for judicial candidates.
David Jones has drawn an opponent in 29.
Still crossing my fingers that someone runs against Rob Bare.
The judge who thinks you should be disciplined for saying fuck.
Last chance to try and influence what departments the latecomers run in. Someone please run against Susan Johnson.
Now that you mention it….. 20 and 22 both should get an opponent. However 22 has been there a long time. But 20 is really bad in state court. He needs to going back to violating due process and constitutional rights in the Liberty Tower.
Both should draw serious opponents, but I fear that neither will.
Your bigger races are still open, Pickering and Bulla. They are getting opponents.
Are you serious about Bare? That must mean you lost your shitty motion and didn't have the balls to appeal it. Because you probably would have lost that too! All the attorneys I know on both sides of the fence would disagree with you when it comes to him. I was in front him this past month and found him prepared and articulate on every case. I lost my motion but I didn't wine, I just listened to what he said and now I know what I'm going to do differently when I refile it.
Wow, someone is an angry white, bald male.
"whine" oh master of your emotions and motions
Don't say fuck in front of him or his momma
Is no one going to run against Kishner? Wouldn't that at least be a way of avoiding appearing in front of her for awhile?
She’s absolutely insufferable on the bench, and enjoys making everything more time consuming and cumbersome than it needs to be. On the other hand, I think her batting average is probably better than most in terms of getting the substantive rulings right. I’d consider voting for a viable challenger but doubt there will be one.