Ukraine
Ukraine is being lost. What we have provided should have started months ago. Ukraine is a vibrant democratic country that had the courage to break away from Russia.
We spent money and lives to support Afghanistan, a backward tribal culture whose people would not defend themselves, throwing their weapons down while running away.
The Ukrainians will fight, but they need air support, artillery and anti-aircraft batteries (Stingers are only effective against low flying aircraft, and are short range).
Please contact your Senator and Representative. The URLS are below.
Thank you.
Tense dealings in front of the Gaming Control Board apparently regarding the head of Resorts World. For those old enough to remember, this would formerly not get the Gaming Control Board to bat an eyelash.
Tucker Carlson didn't call for the LSAT scores of Matthew Spencer Peterson, a failed Federal Court candidate offered by Trump, who was annihilated with simple questions that were in fact posed by a republican senator.
Peterson freely admitted that he had no clue what a motion in limine was, had no idea of the concept of federal abstention as to state claims, had never conducted a jury or bench trial in any court, and had in fact never even argued a motion or ever conducted a deposition.
Although most candidates are not nearly as inept as that one(and I also recognize that he was not a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court), both parties are equally guilty in advancing people who profile very well as to certain political, social and other concerns, rather than putting the emphasis on actual legal skill and meaningful legal experience.
While I agree with you that Tucker's LSAT witch hunt is silly and partisan, the emphasis on actual legal experience is not very high when it comes to liberal appointments. To wit: Elena Kagan has never conducted a jury trial, or a bench trial or agued motions or likely conducted any depositions (she was a junior associate in Williams & Connolly in the 1980s for a little less than year so she may have done a deposition or two). She has never been a Judge of any sort. Her only legal "experience" that was relevant is that since 1991, for the last 30 years, she taught law. But she was of the right political persuasion and remains devoted to her ideology, which is why she was selected.
So its partisan from both ends – And that will never change.
We don't need to know her LSAT score. We know it was far lower than all the white applicants who were accepted her same year. All Ivy League schools give a substantial LSAT score bump (on the order of 20-30 points) to black applicants.
I 100% disagree with the Peterson comment. Have any of you ever practiced in DDC? I have. Lots. The court's docket is like 99% administrative law. Usually there has been a hearing in front of an administrative agency, and the district court is sitting as an appeals judge for the agency decision.
It's REALLY nice to have a judge familiar with administrative law presiding over your administrative law case. In fact, that's why I always bring by admin cases in DDC, even though they can usually be brought in other jurisdictions, too. I'm not alone in this. This is a thing that admin law practitioners talk about.
Know what Peterson did after graduating from a tip-top school (UVA) and doing law review there? He dedicated his career to an administrative practice related to the FEC. In fact, he was the Chair of the FEC when President Obama was in office.
So if he had been nominated to a federal court position in Nevada, I'd agree with you. Haha at the dummy that thinks he should preside over trials in Nevada federal court without knowing a mechanism that's widely used in the court. But to me, if you want agency decisions to come out right, you should put people like Peterson on the DDC.
3:30-I grant you that Peterson's vast administrative/governmental experience could play quite well in DC, and that therefore his blank slate as to legal knowledge and experience would not hurt him nearly as much in DC than it would in other courts, such as Federal Court 9th Circuit.
But that all understood, didn't you find that exchange between him and the Senator absolutely brutal? I did, and agree with 2:30 that if a First year Civ. pro student wanted to earn at least a "C" on the final exam that he/she would need to be able to answer the questions Peterson was clueless on(such as asking about what a motion in limine is, what is the concept of federal abstention, etc.).
So, although you make some valid points that Peterson could succeed if fit in the proper court, I don't see how you can 100% disagree with 2:30.
Because, as for me, even if he were to somehow receive a 100% administrative docket(which I assume is unlikely, but I could well be wrong about that) I don't want anyone on any federal bench, regardless what they are presiding over, who professes to have never heard of federal abstention, a motion in limine, etc.
3:30 here. All good points, 2:14. He absolutely bombed the interview, and I don't have a problem with him not having the job. I just think the whole thing was sensationalized and overblown, and that he could have very well been a great DDC judge given the court's very unique docket. MILs don't really even happen in admin work, because cases are decided by motion, so it makes sense the guy had never heard of them. You're right that there's some normal trial work in DDC. I recall pulling the stat when the Peterson thing happened, and off hand the portion of admin law work was somewhere between 80-95% (this is a vague recollection, but the point is that it was high). I therefore think that understanding admin law is much more important for that court than grasping the concept that judges can decide evidence issues before trial. My main objection to the original comment is that it painted Peterson as some absolute dummy, without acknowledging that he's actually pretty accomplished and experienced in the area of law that matters most in DDC. But ultimately I think you and I are on the same page.
But still, even though Petrson may have spent his whole career in an administrative agency (with vast political implications), as opposed to practicing in actual law firms and representing real clients in court and all that, there is something that remains baffling.
How is it reasonable for him not to know about those concepts simply because they are not really part of his administrative undertakings? They are so basic that I cannot imagine an excuse in not being able to at least vaguely define them.
I personally don't know a lawyer, regardless of practice area, that could not at least vaguely and somewhat accurately offer an observation of what federal preemption entails.
And Petrson would be a federal judge, regardless of how heavy an administrative docket he might be assigned.
That said, I certainly agree that Peterson is bright and capable in the area of his employ, and that it was a bit unfair for the one poster to essentially portray him as a stammering cretin.
But his utter failure to offer even vague observations in response to first year law student general concepts, is quite troubling indeed. The questions he could not even attempt to answer were so basic that it almost
belies the point of whether he uses the concepts in his position.
Guest
Anonymous
March 3, 2022 10:52 pm
I bet I scored higher than KBJ on the LSAT.
She's still wildly more qualified than any of us commenting here.
Guest
Anonymous
March 3, 2022 11:25 pm
I have a long-time client that my firm has done some large matters for; they have a relatively tiny dispute with a customer and "on principal" they wanted to sue them (contract claim ~$10k). So to LVJC we go. I filed the complaint this morning and it still hasn't been auto-accepted. It's the same e-file & serve system as district court but it doesn't seem to be auto-accepting it.
How long does the LVJC e-file & serve system keep a new complaint before accepting it?
Sometimes a day, sometimes a week or more. The Las Vegas Township Justice Court hasn't gotten the memo that they aren't supposed to be queuing e-filed documents for review but rather are supposed to file them instantly and review them later, under NEFCR.
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 12:39 am
I'll up your Tucker comment on racism and go that he is apparently in favor of genocide of Ukrainians, while we should be sympathetic to 6 year olds in Russia who are suffering from the sanctions.
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 12:48 am
To suggest that LSAT performance be a criterion for a candidate to be a Justice on SCOTUS tells you all you need to know — ABOUT FOX NEWS!
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 2:30 am
Selecting someone to the Supreme Court based solely on color and gender means she isn't the most qualified for the job. She may be the most qualified black woman. Look at how successful selecting a minority female worked for our current VP. She has been worthless and has zero accomplishments in her first year. Just sayin.
I think Brown Jackson will be a very good SCOTUS justice, and that she's easily one of the most qualified people out there for the spot. She won't vote the way I would, but quite frankly none of them do, and especially not anyone Biden would have picked. I think Biden's messaging made it easy to say she's a token pick that's less qualified, but that's on Biden and not on Brown Jackson. If you look at her resume and read her decisions from the time she's been on the bench, I think you'll conclude that she's very capable.
Why has she been overruled so many times by the ultra-liberal circuit in which she sits if she has such a stellar legal mind? Who cares about her race or gender. Look at her record.
Reversal rates are not a good indicator of the quality of someone's legal mind, unless it's crazy high. But Brown Jackson had one of the lowest reversal rates while sitting in the DDC.
Getting overruled multiple times for judicial overreach by the DC circuit is exactly the type of political hack of a judge the democrats want on the US supreme court.
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 4:59 pm
Story of a standoff and FBI shooting yesterday. Twitter is saying that it was an attorney. Anyone have information?
The online news sources (e.g. KLAS, etc.) are very short on details and haven't been updated in several hours. Apparently an FBI agent was shot. Wonder why they were involved?
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 6:37 pm
3:09 wins the award for the most racist thing I've seen here.
Ukraine
Ukraine is being lost. What we have provided should have started months ago. Ukraine is a vibrant democratic country that had the courage to break away from Russia.
We spent money and lives to support Afghanistan, a backward tribal culture whose people would not defend themselves, throwing their weapons down while running away.
The Ukrainians will fight, but they need air support, artillery and anti-aircraft batteries (Stingers are only effective against low flying aircraft, and are short range).
Please contact your Senator and Representative. The URLS are below.
Thank you.
Cortex Masto
https://www.cortezmasto.senate.gov/contact
Jacky Rosen
https://www.rosen.senate.gov/contact_jacky
Steven Horsford
infor@stevenhorsford.com
House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/
In the upper right corner enter your Zip under "Find Your Representative"
Kinda gross to speak poorly of one group in order to get support for another
Call Jacky Rosen and tell her she sucks. Solar panels are so low priority to bailing out crooked Las Vegas law firms, PPP.
So the push of a narrative (OP above) is allowed. But anything in opposition to that, gets deleted. Nice.
Did I miss on the blog the discussion of the LVMPD Officer accused of conducting armed robberies of casinos?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/police-officer-accused-of-stealing-78k-in-armed-robbery-at-rio-2537934/
Tense dealings in front of the Gaming Control Board apparently regarding the head of Resorts World. For those old enough to remember, this would formerly not get the Gaming Control Board to bat an eyelash.
https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2022/03/03/gcb-asks-resorts-worlds-sibella-about-gambler/
Tucker Carlson didn't call for the LSAT scores of Matthew Spencer Peterson, a failed Federal Court candidate offered by Trump, who was annihilated with simple questions that were in fact posed by a republican senator.
Peterson freely admitted that he had no clue what a motion in limine was, had no idea of the concept of federal abstention as to state claims, had never conducted a jury or bench trial in any court, and had in fact never even argued a motion or ever conducted a deposition.
Although most candidates are not nearly as inept as that one(and I also recognize that he was not a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court), both parties are equally guilty in advancing people who profile very well as to certain political, social and other concerns, rather than putting the emphasis on actual legal skill and meaningful legal experience.
And that will never change.
While I agree with you that Tucker's LSAT witch hunt is silly and partisan, the emphasis on actual legal experience is not very high when it comes to liberal appointments. To wit: Elena Kagan has never conducted a jury trial, or a bench trial or agued motions or likely conducted any depositions (she was a junior associate in Williams & Connolly in the 1980s for a little less than year so she may have done a deposition or two). She has never been a Judge of any sort. Her only legal "experience" that was relevant is that since 1991, for the last 30 years, she taught law. But she was of the right political persuasion and remains devoted to her ideology, which is why she was selected.
So its partisan from both ends – And that will never change.
We don't need to know her LSAT score. We know it was far lower than all the white applicants who were accepted her same year. All Ivy League schools give a substantial LSAT score bump (on the order of 20-30 points) to black applicants.
I 100% disagree with the Peterson comment. Have any of you ever practiced in DDC? I have. Lots. The court's docket is like 99% administrative law. Usually there has been a hearing in front of an administrative agency, and the district court is sitting as an appeals judge for the agency decision.
It's REALLY nice to have a judge familiar with administrative law presiding over your administrative law case. In fact, that's why I always bring by admin cases in DDC, even though they can usually be brought in other jurisdictions, too. I'm not alone in this. This is a thing that admin law practitioners talk about.
Know what Peterson did after graduating from a tip-top school (UVA) and doing law review there? He dedicated his career to an administrative practice related to the FEC. In fact, he was the Chair of the FEC when President Obama was in office.
So if he had been nominated to a federal court position in Nevada, I'd agree with you. Haha at the dummy that thinks he should preside over trials in Nevada federal court without knowing a mechanism that's widely used in the court. But to me, if you want agency decisions to come out right, you should put people like Peterson on the DDC.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' judges have low LSAT scores.
3:30-I grant you that Peterson's vast administrative/governmental experience could play quite well in DC, and that therefore his blank slate as to legal knowledge and experience would not hurt him nearly as much in DC than it would in other courts, such as Federal Court 9th Circuit.
But that all understood, didn't you find that exchange between him and the Senator absolutely brutal? I did, and agree with 2:30 that if a First year Civ. pro student wanted to earn at least a "C" on the final exam that he/she would need to be able to answer the questions Peterson was clueless on(such as asking about what a motion in limine is, what is the concept of federal abstention, etc.).
So, although you make some valid points that Peterson could succeed if fit in the proper court, I don't see how you can 100% disagree with 2:30.
Because, as for me, even if he were to somehow receive a 100% administrative docket(which I assume is unlikely, but I could well be wrong about that) I don't want anyone on any federal bench, regardless what they are presiding over, who professes to have never heard of federal abstention, a motion in limine, etc.
3:30 here. All good points, 2:14. He absolutely bombed the interview, and I don't have a problem with him not having the job. I just think the whole thing was sensationalized and overblown, and that he could have very well been a great DDC judge given the court's very unique docket. MILs don't really even happen in admin work, because cases are decided by motion, so it makes sense the guy had never heard of them. You're right that there's some normal trial work in DDC. I recall pulling the stat when the Peterson thing happened, and off hand the portion of admin law work was somewhere between 80-95% (this is a vague recollection, but the point is that it was high). I therefore think that understanding admin law is much more important for that court than grasping the concept that judges can decide evidence issues before trial. My main objection to the original comment is that it painted Peterson as some absolute dummy, without acknowledging that he's actually pretty accomplished and experienced in the area of law that matters most in DDC. But ultimately I think you and I are on the same page.
Read the comments by 2:30, 3:30 2;14, 3:01, etc.
The entire thread raises rule good points.
But still, even though Petrson may have spent his whole career in an administrative agency (with vast political implications), as opposed to practicing in actual law firms and representing real clients in court and all that, there is something that remains baffling.
How is it reasonable for him not to know about those concepts simply because they are not really part of his administrative undertakings? They are so basic that I cannot imagine an excuse in not being able to at least vaguely define them.
I personally don't know a lawyer, regardless of practice area, that could not at least vaguely and somewhat accurately offer an observation of what federal preemption entails.
And Petrson would be a federal judge, regardless of how heavy an administrative docket he might be assigned.
That said, I certainly agree that Peterson is bright and capable in the area of his employ, and that it was a bit unfair for the one poster to essentially portray him as a stammering cretin.
But his utter failure to offer even vague observations in response to first year law student general concepts, is quite troubling indeed. The questions he could not even attempt to answer were so basic that it almost
belies the point of whether he uses the concepts in his position.
I bet I scored higher than KBJ on the LSAT.
She's still wildly more qualified than any of us commenting here.
I have a long-time client that my firm has done some large matters for; they have a relatively tiny dispute with a customer and "on principal" they wanted to sue them (contract claim ~$10k). So to LVJC we go. I filed the complaint this morning and it still hasn't been auto-accepted. It's the same e-file & serve system as district court but it doesn't seem to be auto-accepting it.
How long does the LVJC e-file & serve system keep a new complaint before accepting it?
Sometimes a day, sometimes a week or more. The Las Vegas Township Justice Court hasn't gotten the memo that they aren't supposed to be queuing e-filed documents for review but rather are supposed to file them instantly and review them later, under NEFCR.
I'll up your Tucker comment on racism and go that he is apparently in favor of genocide of Ukrainians, while we should be sympathetic to 6 year olds in Russia who are suffering from the sanctions.
To suggest that LSAT performance be a criterion for a candidate to be a Justice on SCOTUS tells you all you need to know — ABOUT FOX NEWS!
Selecting someone to the Supreme Court based solely on color and gender means she isn't the most qualified for the job. She may be the most qualified black woman. Look at how successful selecting a minority female worked for our current VP. She has been worthless and has zero accomplishments in her first year. Just sayin.
I think Brown Jackson will be a very good SCOTUS justice, and that she's easily one of the most qualified people out there for the spot. She won't vote the way I would, but quite frankly none of them do, and especially not anyone Biden would have picked. I think Biden's messaging made it easy to say she's a token pick that's less qualified, but that's on Biden and not on Brown Jackson. If you look at her resume and read her decisions from the time she's been on the bench, I think you'll conclude that she's very capable.
Why has she been overruled so many times by the ultra-liberal circuit in which she sits if she has such a stellar legal mind? Who cares about her race or gender. Look at her record.
The problem is, she will be known as the token pick her entire time on the bench.
When Thurgood Marshall retired and Bush nominated Clarence Thomas…
Reversal rates are not a good indicator of the quality of someone's legal mind, unless it's crazy high. But Brown Jackson had one of the lowest reversal rates while sitting in the DDC.
Getting overruled multiple times for judicial overreach by the DC circuit is exactly the type of political hack of a judge the democrats want on the US supreme court.
Story of a standoff and FBI shooting yesterday. Twitter is saying that it was an attorney. Anyone have information?
The online news sources (e.g. KLAS, etc.) are very short on details and haven't been updated in several hours. Apparently an FBI agent was shot. Wonder why they were involved?
3:09 wins the award for the most racist thing I've seen here.
Better start deleting even tongue in cheek comments. Lest they offend the Moderator…….