- Quickdraw McLaw
- 51 Comments
- 397 Views
Tomorrow marks 5 years from the tragedy that happened on October 1, 2017. As we mark the occasion, we hope that all those affected by it are healing and finding peace in their lives.
- Governor Sisolak announced that the requested and received the resignation of the Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections. Fox5Vegas
- City of Las Vegas loses another Badlands case. [RJ]
- Lawyer Moms of Nevada are collecting signatures on an open letter on Dobbs and Roe v. Wade.
- Live audio of oral argument will continues as the U.S. Supreme Court partially reopens to the public. [SCOTUSblog]
- Working remotely is now a top priority with 87% of lawyers working remotely. [ABA Journal]
Working remotely? No. At the height of the Covid lock down everyone was required to work in the office. Of course, an associate caught Covid and it spread throughout the office. I guess you could say we were then remote.
The pandemic is over. No reason to work remote anymore unless you're just lazy.
The legal industry is, as always, slow to adapt to the times. Mostly because of outdated beliefs like this one.
I can get all of my shit done and keep current and make my billable goals remotely. At this point, the only reason for in person work is for "face time" which I have always hated and continue to hate.
I work 100% from home now – I meet the boss once a week for about 30 minutes (no idea why really he just asks me what's going on and hands me mail)
Agree with comments above – I too get all my shit done and have more time away from the grind and with my family. WFH is the one silver lining in my opinion that came from the pandemic. I'm never going back to the office. I'm so fortunate that my firm agree.
I was in the office throughout the entire ordeal, but I had the option of working remotely (and still do). I only came into the office because it was hard to get work done with my family and pets. There are days where I miss being the only one in the office.
I dont understand the polarity between working from home or office. At end of the day, if work is getting done and productivity is not dropping, who gives a shit WHERE a person works from. They can be working from Nigeria for all i care if those 2 things dont get affected
2:35 employees working remotely from other states or, worse, other countries means you're an employer in those jurisdictions and subject to the laws of those jurisdictions, must withhold state or local income taxes and all the other compliance issues that go along with that. I know you said you don't care if they work from Nigeria jokingly, but I do employment law so could not help myself from mentioning this as I have been up to my elbows dealing with these issues ever since COVID happened. I work from home in NV 🙂
"The undersigned believe abortive healthcare is a human right protected by the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America." It appears the undersigned don't understand the constitution.
This group functions on emotions only. But I love it when people sign their names, now we know who to avoid on matters that involve critical thinking and legal analysis.
Luckily, I don't know any of these chicks. Hope to keep it this way.
@10:29 Unlike you who likes to spread misogyny on an anonymous blog? Because misogyny and rudeness are definitely signs of critical thinking? Anyways, condolences to your wife.
@10:54 AM No point in feeding the trolls. They comment just to make themselves feel relevant (because they are not).
@10:54 – you just proved my point. I am @10:29 and I am a female – with a husband. @10:04 is correct and my point was that the group that signed the letter does not care about the constitution or legal arguments – they function on emotion. There is nothing misogynist about my comment – but there is certainly a misogynist undertone in your comment because you seem to imply that their emotion is only because they are women and not for some other reason?
@12:04 PM We have no idea whether @10:54 knows anything about the "group." Do you know anything about it? It appears they have no ideological agenda. Nevertheless, what you suggest is that the majority of supreme court justices in the past 50-years were "function[ing] on emotion" and did not "understand the Constitution?" Most Supreme Court Justices in the past 50-years recognized the right to privacy and elective abortion. The current Court is comprised of extreme outliers on these points – many of whom were appointed by Donald Trump. Not to put too fine a point on it: vast majority of American jurists and lawyers agree that the Constitution protects reproductive freedoms. If you are attempting to disparage the signatories out of professional competitiveness, I'm sure their professional records speak for themselves. Evidently, they have a better sense of legal and constitutional analysis than you do if the majority of jurists, lawyers, and the American people, agree the reproductive freedom is a constitutional right.
@12:17 let me guess…you signed the letter. lol
Either way, @1217 doesn't understand the Constitution either.
@10:54 here. Yes, I know about the "group." I am one of just over 400 women in a "Las Vegas Law Mom" FB group and this letter originated among members of that group. I have no "professional competitiveness" with anyone in that group and it is mostly "mom" stuff and referral seeking – all fine. But occasionally when "legal" issues arise, some real zingers are flying in the posts and comments that lend to my opinion. I am also of the opinion that no, "they" do not have a better sense of "legal or constitutional analysis" than I do and it seems you are similarly challenged. A "majority" of the US Supreme Court disagree with you – and their decision is what makes law so your reference to a majority of "jurists" and other Americans is of no consequence (even if true). People who want to legalize abortion just want that – legalized abortion. The do not understand the distinction between federal v. states rights. Also – many of us women are pro life. If you're a lawyer and want to make an impact on this area – do something that has meaning – go to to the Nevada legislature. Open letters that are emotionally charged and with reference to overturned law is nothing more than emotional fake news.
@12:17…so if a "majority" of individuals want something – it must be so? Have we forgotten history? Can you say – slavery? Civil War? Good grief. You're an example of what happens when a country forgets its history and seeks to replace it with woke b.s.
Paragraphs 1-6 I agree with and would co-sign as a married Mormon dude. The rest unnecessarily clutters up the letter.
12:41 PM "it seems that you are similarly challenged." No, you disagree with the Constitutional analysis and jurisprudence of Justice Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer, Warren, Burger, Blackmun, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, and, presumably, Brown Jackson. You also disagree with countless Constitutional scholars (see https://reproductiverights.org/about-us/leadership-and-staff/ and the at least 2-3 faculty in most law schools). Your odd attack on me has little to do with the fact that highly experienced legal scholars and justices believe that reproductive rights are protected by the Constitution. Whatever strange beef you have with this "group" seems to be highly emotionally charged for you. Perhaps you should let more collected and reasonable minds be of service to your legal analysis.
Last time I checked, "constitutional scholars" ≠ Supreme Court.
Also, just because the Justices you name did not overturn RvW, they had a hand in the narrowing of it in the Casey decision.
Bottom line, very few people want to ban abortion. Likewise, very few people support unfettered abortion access past viability. Ultimately, its a State's rights issue that the left lies about every time they discuss it.
Just a few examples of the most common lies.
*Miscarriages are not abortions.
*Ectopic Pregnancies are not abortions.
*Lindsay Grahams National bill is not a "ban" (15 weeks with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother).
If the majority were truly pro-abortion, the left and its MSM wouldn't have to lie about it. The "abortion ads" of many dems (especially in Nevada) accusing Republicans of wanting to ban abortion will only deepen the red wave coming in November.
2:05 PM Are you a physician?
A D&C is not an abortion and miscarriages almost never occur after viability.
Further, an abortion is not performed in an ectopic pregnancy, if it ruptures, the fallopian tube is usually removed. Within the first few weeks (up to the first trimester) of pregnancy is most common. Which would never really be an issue in the case of Grahams bill. Not only because its first trimester, but because it threatens the life of the mother.
Here we go with the leftist bullshit spin on why any limits on abortion cannot stand. The red herrings are nonsense and not covered in any manner by the proposed bills or current laws. You're just flat out wrong, lying or likely both. Typical.
Certainly male.
Affidavits: 2 more pregnant minors who were raped were denied Ohio abortions
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/09/27/affidavits-2-more-raped-minors-were-denied-ohio-abortions/69520380007/
12:41 is not 10:54
It's hard to have a rationale discussion on abortion when folks stupidly believe women who miscarry are at risk of criminal charges. Get a grip on reality.
Yes. Male. What was your clue? All the indisputable facts?
I posted a long list of articles from the New York Times, and more from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It was deleted. Why?
The Governor certainly has the right and the authority to fire the Director Of the Nevada Department of Corrections, and certainly the escape of a dangerous inmate is always an extremely serious problem.
But this Director has apparently served the department in an excellent manner for 30 years, and finally ascended to the ultimate leadership post of the entire department.
So, it kind of looks like he is being used as a scapegoat. I realize the buck stops with the Director, and he is the boss and thus is ultimately responsible and all that. But nowhere does the article point to any negligent situation, which the Director knew about or should have known about, which made an escape more likely
Perhaps the main concern is that it apparently took some time before the Director announced to the Governor's office, or to the media and others, that the inmate had escaped. Members of the public should know as soon as possible, as should the media outlets, so people can take proper precautions.
Kind of looks like the Director knew this matter would blow up and end very badly for him if the escape was announced. So, it looks like he may have wanted to keep it internal in the hope that the Department could retrieve the escapee with due haste.
I'm of course speculating, but I can't think of any other realistic reason why the
escape went unannounced for(what appears to be) a few days.
I am friends with a former Director of NDOC who has unequivocally stated that this firing has been a long time coming and is very long overdue. This is not the first nail in the coffin but is certainly should have been and was the last in a coffin that has so many nails that you could melt it down.
The director has only been here for a few years. He has had problems since he came here from some horrible Southern prison.
11:1-it may have played out generally as you suggest, but I think there are additional levels and complications due to the current political environment.
The fact that the escapee was illegally in the country makes this even more of a political hot potato for Sisolak in an election year where he and his opponent are neck and neck in the polling.
The ad campaign by his opponent, as well from conservative groups, would read something like: the Governor shares the liberal polices of those in Washington who will not control our boarders, and therefore dangerous criminals and drug dealers stream into our country, endangering the health and safety of God-fearing, tax-paying American citizens, etc.
So, in hopes of minimizing fallout like that, he had to act swiftly and in a major, decisive way.
11:20-I think the ad campaign would be generally as you say, but I think you give the average voter too much credit when you say the ad will merely say the Governor shares the views of the Washington politicians who make our boarders so porous and dangerous.
I think the ad will more directly blame him and insist that HE is responsible for much of what occurs on the boarder. Many disgruntled voters, angry about the immigration crisis as well as other serious issues,will be more than willing to believe, if they don't already believe, that a Nevada governor can do much to control the boarder.
11:24 I see what you did there
5:49-That sounds sort of ominous and oblique. What did 11:24 do?
Right now I work one job, I'm an attorney, but I'm thinking about picking up another part-time job a I have an accounting undergrad (I posted recently about passing on costs and had a nice conversation with a couple other people), I found this site https://overemployed.com/ I have no idea if it is helpful but I wonder if any other lawyers have a second part-time job, I think the kids call it a side hustle or something (wow I sound old haha)
A side hustle is fine if it doesn't interfere with lawyering. I.e., it has to be something where you really can set your own schedule / hours / deadlines. I tried working two jobs a few years ago and it was a disaster. Scheduling was difficult and it always felt like I was neglecting my clients. Then I ended up trying to catch up at night and on weekends. It was absolutely not worth the extra money.
By contrast, more recently I flipped a house and that worked. It took about twice as long as I expected, largely because I was so busy with legal work at the same time. But there were no deadlines, so it was doable. (And prices were still rising, so time was in my favor.)
Now I'm trying to work less, not more. I'm in my early 40s and I hope that before age 50 I will only be lawyering for fun.
OP back, thanks for the thoughtful reply
Anyone that accepts a salary that puts them in the top 10% of earners in the USA (go look that up, you will be surprised. Not household income, earners) should expect that their "job" is not 9to5. A side hustle is likely interfering with what allows you to earn this top income
5:49 you seem to be making assumptions and generalizations that may not be warranted. Not every lawyer is in the top 10% of earners. Could be legal aid or other non-profit, gov't, or just at a low-paying firm.
@5:49 PM may not understand what student loan debt.
Does anyone have insightful viewpoints on the ballot questions? I try to read them and my head starts spinning (yes, I am a lawyer). I wish the explanations included specifically who/what groups were proponents of each ballot question. I generally disfavor constitutional amendments and vote no on them unless there is some super-compelling reason a particular matter needs to be addressed in the Constitution rather than by statute. My impression from past constitutional amendments is that they are typically a hot mess of unintended consequences and not workable to actually apply in practice, and once something is enshrined in the Constitution, it's very very difficult to undo.
Accompanying ballot questions are arguments for and against. Why do you care what groups support or oppose? Do you not have sufficient critical thinking abilities to make up your own mind without having to first know what others think? You genuinely can't figure out what they mean?
Dear 10:44, I'm not 12:46 but please – be kind, there are many reasons 12:46 could be asking for help, maybe (God Forbid) he just lost a loved one and is kind of reaching out, maybe he is suffering from depression, maybe he really does understand but is making a first attempt at joining the community, don't let this profession turn you into an unkind person
There is also the possibility of just asking for other view points to get a fully educated picture of the issues instead of thinking you know everything.
I concur that you 10:44 came across as unnecessarily nasty. Perhaps it is the fact that you are posting on a law blog at 10:44 pm on a Saturday night. However I will not speculate but will instead attempt to show the kindness that your post lacked and hope that things get better for you.
I plan to vote in favor of the top-5 ranked-choice voting question. Will it solve all of our problems with polarization, etc.? No. But it should give voters more choices in the general election, including more moderate Ds and Rs, and maybe a nonpartisan or minor party candidate could have more than a snowball's chance in certain races.
You can look up the campaign finance reports of the various PACs running the ballot questions to get a feel for who is monetarily supporting them.
https://nvsos.gov/SOSCandidateServices/AnonymousAccess/CEFDSearchUU/Search.aspx
You can find the names of the PACs here: https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/2022-petitions
10:44 the arguments for or against are written by people with obvious agendas and the truth is typically somewhere in between. I expected that this esteemed group may have insights not contained in the agenda-driven arguments for or against. Its pretty facially obvious why the force behind each is relevant to understanding what is really going on. 11:01 thank you for your informative reply, especially where to find the PAC info. As for the rest of the comments, I do appreciate people speaking up in defense of my comment. I am not, however, mentally compromised. I was just curious what others thought.