Judge Stefany Miley sentenced suspended attorney Vicki Greco to 90 days in jail and 5 years probation. [RJ]
Nevada’s rural counties are struggling to provide public defenders. [RGJ]
The father of the boy who brought a gun to school last week is being charged with child abuse by the DA. [Fox5Vegas]
Almost 60 female Nevada attorneys signed on to a letter calling for a thorough investigation into the claims against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. [TNI]
There is a liveblog over at SCOTUSblog regarding the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing today. As always, you’re welcome to discuss it in the comments below as well.
I haven't seen the fee schedule so can't really comment on it. In general terms, it probably should be re-examined and brought more current to at least somewhere in the neighborhood of insurance defense rates (the insurance carriers do a good job of leveraging their bargaining power to hold the rates down). The rate should, once it's been adjusted, be linked to inflation (even using the C-CPI-W [what social security uses – the most conservative measure (and no cost to the State/County to use as SSA would be doing the calculations).
The caps may or may not be properly set, but should at least probably be looked at. Perhaps they should be linked to the crimes charged (a robbery will likely be more work than a shoplifting). The oddball case that falls outside the range, for good cause, can be addressed on a case-by-case basis with a safety valve provision.
It's not the hourly rate in the rurals that is the problem. It's the flat fee contracts with no expectation or limit on the number of cases expected to be handled for the amount.
Guest
Anonymous
September 27, 2018 5:57 pm
I believe Dr. Ford, Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Eileen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward, Sally Perdue, Sandra Allen James, etc.
Guest
Anonymous
September 27, 2018 5:59 pm
I signed the petition in favor of Dr. Ford as well. She is a brave woman. If Heller does not call for an investigation, I will be voting for Rosen.
I think both choices suck. I know I am throwing the vote away but will vote for a third party candidate, just haven't decided which one yet.
I know whoever I vote for will have zero chance of winning, but using it as a protest vote to send a message to the major parties to get better, more mainstream, candidates. Perhaps, as a side benefit, the third parties will get better candidates and actually become viable in future elections.
I would love to see a couple changes to our election process. Bring in the option of a write-in candidate as well as the ranked voting method (to win a candidate must get 50%+1). Under that method, the voters rank their votes among the candidates. If after the first round of results, no one has the required 50%+1, the lowest vote total candidate is eliminated and their votes are reallocated to the next highest preference as indicated by each voter that voted for that candidate. The results are again compared against the 50%+1 minimum and if met a winner is declared, if not repeat the process until a winner emerges.
Anyone who watched Ford testify cannot legitimately believe she was put up to it for partisan reasons. Saying the Clintons are behind it is lazy and stupid. She clearly believes what she is saying and really did not want to be saying it. She is also the one asking for a real investigation (where the fact witnesses are interviewed). If GOP believes him, call all witnesses and/or send it to the FBI. If they don't believe him, dump him now and get a better nominee confirmed. I suspect GOP won't do this because Trump likes his stance on whether a sitting president can be indicted – truth as to the allegations be damned.
Aside from what's happening with the allegations, has anyone looked at his qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. As I recall, he worked in the Bush administration and on his campaign. When he was nominated for the D.C. Circuit of Appeals, he had never served in a judicial position before. Also, his nomination dragged on for several months and there were questions whether he was the right choice to serve on the appeals court. Seems to me that a rational person would withdraw his nomination and start over with someone who can be vetted more properly and has the qualifications. Oh wait, I said rational person. My bad.
If you really think this is a vast Clinton/Soros/whoever else you want to throw in there conspiracy, then please ask yourself why Gorsuch's confirmation went so smoothly. If they're going to arrange some grand conspiracy wouldn't the dirty lib leftist machine have fought tooth an nail on the first nomination after Trump took over?
I mean, the point of conspiracy theories isn't to make rational sense. The point of conspiracy theories is to provide a bridge between two obviously irreconciliable statements about the world. A conspiracy theory is a psychological defense mechanism, which is why people hold onto them so tightly.
In this case, the obviously irreconciliable statements are "I, a conservative, am a good person who opposes rape" and "three different women have accused Kavanaugh of sex crimes in pretty plausible circumstances." The rational response would be to back down from one of those statements – either to stop supporting Kavanaugh, or to admit that you're putting policy preferences over basic, bedrock morals. But people don't want to do either of those things. Some insane conspiracy theory about how actually all of the accusers were paid by (((Soros))) is psychologically attractive, because it lets them uphold their political principles without feeling like they're making a bad moral choice.
She may have had an issue 35 years ago. Usually juveniles don't get this much publicity. Are you all accountable for your actions as a juvenile? Perfect huh? Amazing. Regardless, he is innocent until proven guilty. Her memory is flawed…move it along people. No winners here. And yes, blame Clintons.
Kavanaugh has solid qualifications. Yale law grad. Twelve years on the DC Circuit Court is pretty good experience for the Supreme Court
Guest
Anonymous
September 28, 2018 12:44 am
To: 2:55. No one in the political arena is going to truly examine the qualifications. For those on the left already pre-disposed against him, regardless of how the hearings unfold, they will be convinced he committed a sexual assault and should not be confirmed.
Those on the right who are pre-disposed to support him, will listen to the same hearings and conclude that he did not commit a sexual assault and that he is the one being victimized.
Very few people will truly keep an open mind when listening to the hearings, and almost no one who holds office in this highly charged, polarized political environment will truly be objective, keep an open mind and not make up their mind until the hearings are concluded.
No. Instead, this is a case where people put the cart before the horse. People decide beforehand(usually based on their political leanings and political philosophies), whether he did the deed or not. Then both sides will listen to the exact same testimony and evidence, and each side will interpret it as being far more favorable to their positon than to the other side.
So, they make up their mind before the hearings ever begin, and then the hearings merely serve to solidify their opinions even more strongly.
Therefore, these matters will never be resolved upon qualifications.
However, if we truly force ourselves to be objective, we would agree with 2:37. No way in Hell this women wanted to come forward for purposes of perceived prestige, possible future political motive, or allowing herself to be a pawn of the left. That is absurd. This traumatized her so much, and she really wrestled with this decision to come forward at all. It is torture for her.
As for the judge, he also seems convincing, as well as passionate, angry, highly indignant and deeply offended by these accusations.
I also believe an objective person would conclude that the questioning really sucked on both sides. None of the senators drew upon any of their legal training as to examination of witnesses, even though the majority of them are licensed attorneys.
Even though a professional prosecutor was retained to pose questions, she was quite ineffective, and the structure(only could ask questions in 5 minute increments separated by sometimes long periods of time) handicapped her even more.
Once the senators saw how ineffective such prosecutor was, they could have made some minimal efforts to ask rational questions to gain useless information, rather than simply indulging in long-winded, attention-seeking political posturing and false demonstrations of supposed righteous moral indignation.
Very few people believe there are too many people in the Senate who are sufficiently justified in expressing righteous moral indignation. After all, one must be fairly moral before they can convincingly express righteous moral indignation.
The article on indigent defense reminds me of the Bobby Russell’s The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia
$85 an hour is a sick joke. The caps in 7.125 might also be revisited – an update every few decades might be appropriate.
The rate is the sick joke? Not that it's the indigent defendant who either pays it or works off the debt?
I haven't seen the fee schedule so can't really comment on it. In general terms, it probably should be re-examined and brought more current to at least somewhere in the neighborhood of insurance defense rates (the insurance carriers do a good job of leveraging their bargaining power to hold the rates down). The rate should, once it's been adjusted, be linked to inflation (even using the C-CPI-W [what social security uses – the most conservative measure (and no cost to the State/County to use as SSA would be doing the calculations).
The caps may or may not be properly set, but should at least probably be looked at. Perhaps they should be linked to the crimes charged (a robbery will likely be more work than a shoplifting). The oddball case that falls outside the range, for good cause, can be addressed on a case-by-case basis with a safety valve provision.
It's not the hourly rate in the rurals that is the problem. It's the flat fee contracts with no expectation or limit on the number of cases expected to be handled for the amount.
I believe Dr. Ford, Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Eileen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward, Sally Perdue, Sandra Allen James, etc.
I signed the petition in favor of Dr. Ford as well. She is a brave woman. If Heller does not call for an investigation, I will be voting for Rosen.
I think both choices suck. I know I am throwing the vote away but will vote for a third party candidate, just haven't decided which one yet.
I know whoever I vote for will have zero chance of winning, but using it as a protest vote to send a message to the major parties to get better, more mainstream, candidates. Perhaps, as a side benefit, the third parties will get better candidates and actually become viable in future elections.
I would love to see a couple changes to our election process. Bring in the option of a write-in candidate as well as the ranked voting method (to win a candidate must get 50%+1). Under that method, the voters rank their votes among the candidates. If after the first round of results, no one has the required 50%+1, the lowest vote total candidate is eliminated and their votes are reallocated to the next highest preference as indicated by each voter that voted for that candidate. The results are again compared against the 50%+1 minimum and if met a winner is declared, if not repeat the process until a winner emerges.
12:01 — Cast a vote that counts, you spineless jellyfish.
12:46,
Looking at the Governor's race. We've got Laxalt (No), Sisolak (Double No), and Ryan "Hell No" Bundy.
Hey 12:01 . . .
Your thinking is exactly how and why Trump was elected.
12:46 has it right; PLEASE cast a vote that counts.
on Kavanaugh–righteous indignation, but not exactly judicial temperament.
Yes – but this is personal, not judicial business. I'm okay with him going further than you would expect him to do from the bench.
This is revenge of the Clintons.
Says Kavanaugh.
Says the American people!
Anyone who watched Ford testify cannot legitimately believe she was put up to it for partisan reasons. Saying the Clintons are behind it is lazy and stupid. She clearly believes what she is saying and really did not want to be saying it. She is also the one asking for a real investigation (where the fact witnesses are interviewed). If GOP believes him, call all witnesses and/or send it to the FBI. If they don't believe him, dump him now and get a better nominee confirmed. I suspect GOP won't do this because Trump likes his stance on whether a sitting president can be indicted – truth as to the allegations be damned.
Oh, oh. America has become sexual predators.
Aside from what's happening with the allegations, has anyone looked at his qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. As I recall, he worked in the Bush administration and on his campaign. When he was nominated for the D.C. Circuit of Appeals, he had never served in a judicial position before. Also, his nomination dragged on for several months and there were questions whether he was the right choice to serve on the appeals court. Seems to me that a rational person would withdraw his nomination and start over with someone who can be vetted more properly and has the qualifications. Oh wait, I said rational person. My bad.
If you really think this is a vast Clinton/Soros/whoever else you want to throw in there conspiracy, then please ask yourself why Gorsuch's confirmation went so smoothly. If they're going to arrange some grand conspiracy wouldn't the dirty lib leftist machine have fought tooth an nail on the first nomination after Trump took over?
I mean, the point of conspiracy theories isn't to make rational sense. The point of conspiracy theories is to provide a bridge between two obviously irreconciliable statements about the world. A conspiracy theory is a psychological defense mechanism, which is why people hold onto them so tightly.
In this case, the obviously irreconciliable statements are "I, a conservative, am a good person who opposes rape" and "three different women have accused Kavanaugh of sex crimes in pretty plausible circumstances." The rational response would be to back down from one of those statements – either to stop supporting Kavanaugh, or to admit that you're putting policy preferences over basic, bedrock morals. But people don't want to do either of those things. Some insane conspiracy theory about how actually all of the accusers were paid by (((Soros))) is psychologically attractive, because it lets them uphold their political principles without feeling like they're making a bad moral choice.
She may have had an issue 35 years ago. Usually juveniles don't get this much publicity. Are you all accountable for your actions as a juvenile? Perfect huh? Amazing. Regardless, he is innocent until proven guilty. Her memory is flawed…move it along people. No winners here. And yes, blame Clintons.
Kavanaugh has solid qualifications. Yale law grad. Twelve years on the DC Circuit Court is pretty good experience for the Supreme Court
To: 2:55. No one in the political arena is going to truly examine the qualifications. For those on the left already pre-disposed against him, regardless of how the hearings unfold, they will be convinced he committed a sexual assault and should not be confirmed.
Those on the right who are pre-disposed to support him, will listen to the same hearings and conclude that he did not commit a sexual assault and that he is the one being victimized.
Very few people will truly keep an open mind when listening to the hearings, and almost no one who holds office in this highly charged, polarized political environment will truly be objective, keep an open mind and not make up their mind until the hearings are concluded.
No. Instead, this is a case where people put the cart before the horse. People decide beforehand(usually based on their political leanings and political philosophies), whether he did the deed or not. Then both sides will listen to the exact same testimony and evidence, and each side will interpret it as being far more favorable to their positon than to the other side.
So, they make up their mind before the hearings ever begin, and then the hearings merely serve to solidify their opinions even more strongly.
Therefore, these matters will never be resolved upon qualifications.
However, if we truly force ourselves to be objective, we would agree with 2:37. No way in Hell this women wanted to come forward for purposes of perceived prestige, possible future political motive, or allowing herself to be a pawn of the left. That is absurd. This traumatized her so much, and she really wrestled with this decision to come forward at all. It is torture for her.
As for the judge, he also seems convincing, as well as passionate, angry, highly indignant and deeply offended by these accusations.
I also believe an objective person would conclude that the questioning really sucked on both sides. None of the senators drew upon any of their legal training as to examination of witnesses, even though the majority of them are licensed attorneys.
Even though a professional prosecutor was retained to pose questions, she was quite ineffective, and the structure(only could ask questions in 5 minute increments separated by sometimes long periods of time) handicapped her even more.
Once the senators saw how ineffective such prosecutor was, they could have made some minimal efforts to ask rational questions to gain useless information, rather than simply indulging in long-winded, attention-seeking political posturing and false demonstrations of supposed righteous moral indignation.
Very few people believe there are too many people in the Senate who are sufficiently justified in expressing righteous moral indignation. After all, one must be fairly moral before they can convincingly express righteous moral indignation.
tl;dr
#ithappenedtome