Casino disputes say players have missed out on $1.3M in 2024. [RJ]
Utah’s bid for control of federal land gets support from Elko commissioners. [TNI]
Racist text messages referencing slavery raise alarms in multiple states. [RJ; KTNV]
Las Vegas City Council postpones settlement decision on Badlands suit, but settlement is imminent. [News3LV]
It’s Veterans Day on Monday so we’re going to make it a long weekend. We hope that you have the day off, but if you don’t we hope it is at least a quiet day for you. We’ll see you all on Tuesday.
In private practice. We close our office for all holidays recognized by the Eighth, and a couple more. It’s good for morale and retention. Not worth squeezing out a bit more revenue.
If the courts are closed. I am closed and my people are paid.
Guest
Anonymous
November 8, 2024 12:14 pm
CONFIRMED. Judge Charter in Department Y of the Family Court submitted a letter of resignation effective 11/15/24. Anyone have any additional information?
FYI: The Judicial Committee will not appoint a person to bench who has been voted off the bench. I would love to see Hughes and Guadet back on the bench. Maybe 2026 election.
A study was done by one of the political consultants. All things being equal- a female v. a male judicial candidate (without high name recognition) will out poll a male candidate 55 to 45 per cent. Female voters will vote for female candidates most if not all of the time. Female voters are a slight majority of voters. Male voters don’t vote along gender lines. Look what happened to Joe Scisento. He had all the endorsements–police, fire, RJ and Culinary and lost to an unknown female. Another example was Paul Gaudet in Family Court. Before that it was Judge Bare and Judge Trevor Atkin. Where does it stop.
3:31 is absolutely correct. So let’s make the best of it by drafting the absolute hottest female lawers to run in judicial elections. Get the best looking babes from the entire legal community and make them judges. No fatties, uglies, or oldies. If we can’t have a good bench, we can at least have a hot bench!
The last time I said, eh, I don’t know either of the candidates so why not vote for the woman, that woman was Halvorsen. Learned my lesson with that one.
Guest
Anonymous
November 9, 2024 2:55 pm
Maybe blawg master not watching on weekends so much and I can slide in some Trump praise. Let me test this. MAGA forever!! JD 2028. Trump rules!!! #SitDownRachel
As Border Czar perhaps she could have thought of that instead of giving Oprah another million. When will politicians on both sides get it that we simply want to raise our families, afford eggs, have a reasonable career, etc. I can’t remember when all these liberal social issue positions ever worked and I’m getting old haha
Affordable/universal healthcare – liberal policy
Public education for all – liberal policy
Student loan forgiveness – liberal policy
5 day work week – liberal policy
40 hour work week – liberal policy
Overtime – liberal policy
Minimum wage – liberal policy
Religious freedom – liberal policy
Unions (including training, apprenticeships, etc) – liberal policy
I’m not sure what you think the republicans and trump specifically have done on any of the 3 issues you listed, but those are not republican values. Those are liberal values supported by liberal policy. And it’s not your opinion that matters. These are facts. Use those research skills you honed during the pandemic and go online and read about it.
Wow homie, you could not be more wrong.
Religious freedom is a liberal policy?
Also, exactly where do his three concerns fit into any of your drivel.
The implied from his post is that he wants to do these three things WITHOUT government interference.
NOT a liberal policy.
When the so-called founding fathers left England, they did so because they allegedly wanted to practice their religion free from interference from the state. In England they were persecuted and treated as heretics. They were not looked at as conservative folks. It was wildly progressive (i.e. liberal) for anyone to think that they were entitled to practice any religion they wanted. My analysis is not wrong. You just do not understand or know history.
The other parts are your comment are just…ok dude. Do you think people just magically got a 5 day work week? Do you think that companies happily pay overtime? If you’re working 80 hours a week, what kind of family life do you think you’d have. Government policy is a reflection of our values. All the things I listed are government policies that reflect liberal social values and support the 3 things listed by 9:53. Just keep drinking the koolaid. Drink a lot more of it, please.
Contra point
Most of what you describe are the result of capitalism (yes, there is a populous element too, but which would have not been possible without rising affluence). Consider that increased wealth for the nation made:
– a public policy for universal education possible (although it appears that has turned into just a place to park the kids for 12 years),
– 5 day work week and overtime
– Medicare (only possible for an affluent country)
and so forth.
That said, religious freedom is under attack. The right to free speech is under attack, governmental and media bias is on the rise.
@11:35 that’s simply wrong. None of those things were given and they had nothing to do with the wealth of the nation. Unions fought for decades to obtain those basic considerations on the job. You’re also comparing apples to oranges. Medicare is something that we pay into via our social security taxes. That is not something that is given to us by a wealthy nation. We pay for it. It is literally our money that we are entitled to when we reach a certain age.
Sorry, it is not that simple. Without rising wealth the socialist things you name would not have been possible. People pay into SS because they have INCOME.
The societal things dear to you only happen when there is money to pay for them.
As to the comment that “it is literally our money we are entitled to…” is completely not factual. Messaging on this blog is too short to fully explain, but you can research it.
You are mistaken. The people have income not because of a so-called wealthy nation. They have income because liberal policies like overtime and minimum wage gave it to them. Corporations never have and never will be motivated by simple largess to do right by their workers. The nation can have lots of wealth and that does not translate to regular people having money.
NOW you are going to cite the founding fathers. How fucking convenient.
GTFOH. Well, they WERE progressive which equates to modern progressive theory. Kind of like how the 40s and 50s democrats were all segregationists and the republicans were not.
Religious freedom is a republican platform? Christianity is “claimed” to be republican, but that is not religious freedom. What you mean is you want your religion to be forced upon others. You don’t want government interference for woke issues, but want them for things you believe. That is not freedom.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I said “social” issues. Maybe we define those differently. Yes, liberalism has produced some good stuff. My grandpa was a union organizer so I got a lot of that growing up. I’m referring to the trans, woke, dei stuff. I haven’t seen that resonate. But i appreciate the civil discussion.
I don’t understand what you mean by “trans, woke, dei stuff.” If you’re talking about depriving people of basic human rights, we have a disagreement. Also, ignoring DEI is bad business. Time and time again marketing departments and major corporations embarrass themselves by doing things that one single woman or person of color on the marketing team would have caught before it turned into a publicity disaster. Gucci and Prada are the first that come to mind, but Nike has had some that come to mind as well. Diversity just makes sense for businesses and that’s about as capitalistic as you can get.
Not really. My voice isn’t that good and my singing voice is worse. But I can’t hear blog comments. Are you hearing the blog comments? Are you hearing my voice as you read this?
Open border with no control – liberal policy
innocent Americans getting killed by illegals – liberal policy
allow rampant thievery, smash and grabs – liberal policy
allow hard core drugs to be legal (Oregon & Washington) – liberal policy
don’t let police do their jobs – liberal policy
Wokeism – liberal policy
DEI – liberal policy
let juvenile kids (with schools help) become trans w/o parens knowledge – liberal policy
let me into women’s sports – liberal policy
give billions to IRAN – liberal policy
give hundreds of billions to Ukraine – liberal policy
put illegals before homeless and veterans – liberal policy
and i can go on
“don’t let police do their jobs” I’m confused by this. Is it the pushback against the police’s violation of constitutional rights that you view as a liberal policy, or is it the demand for compensation as a result of police exceeding their authority?
Because I remember not so long ago and not so far from here when conservatives screamed about the idea of a police state, and would loudly proclaim (and arm themselves) against federal employees just trying to do their job and enforce the law. Or is the “conservative” policy that the police should have a free rein to enforce their version of the law, as long as the enforcement happens against people conservatives don’t like?
Isn’t that the ultimate conservative dream? A situation in which individual liberty is held paramount? Freed from the crushing imposition of rules and regulations? Freed from the police and other agencies that enforce them?
Conservatives believe in two groups of people. The group they belong to, to whom the benefits of the laws apply but none of the consequences, and the “others,” to whom the consequences apply but none of the benefits.
I remember in a life prior to private practice when Veteran’s Day was a day off.
In private practice. We close our office for all holidays recognized by the Eighth, and a couple more. It’s good for morale and retention. Not worth squeezing out a bit more revenue.
If the courts are closed. I am closed and my people are paid.
CONFIRMED. Judge Charter in Department Y of the Family Court submitted a letter of resignation effective 11/15/24. Anyone have any additional information?
Wow. That’s a big deal. Maybe we get Gaudet back.
I would like to see Rena Hughes back on the bench.
Absolutely! Draft Rena!!! I doubt she’d ever go back, but she’d be the best judge on the bench as soon as she walked in the door. So smart.
hardly!
Calling it right now: James Leavitt will apply.
Treffiger, Kurth, Hughes…the usual suspects probably will apply too.
I think you meant James “Leavitt” Leavitt, who isn’t actually a Southern Nevada Leavitt at all.
Well, to be fair he is a Leavitt and has lived for many years in So. NV.
Yeah imagine one family asserting that they get to have a monopoly on your last name.
FYI: The Judicial Committee will not appoint a person to bench who has been voted off the bench. I would love to see Hughes and Guadet back on the bench. Maybe 2026 election.
Committee doesn’t appoint anyone.
They do name the prospective appointees.
They don’t even do that if there are 3 or fewer applicants.
A man can’t win a judicial election right now against a woman. Just the way it is.
A study was done by one of the political consultants. All things being equal- a female v. a male judicial candidate (without high name recognition) will out poll a male candidate 55 to 45 per cent. Female voters will vote for female candidates most if not all of the time. Female voters are a slight majority of voters. Male voters don’t vote along gender lines. Look what happened to Joe Scisento. He had all the endorsements–police, fire, RJ and Culinary and lost to an unknown female. Another example was Paul Gaudet in Family Court. Before that it was Judge Bare and Judge Trevor Atkin. Where does it stop.
“Where does it stop.”
It doesn’t. There’s nothing that you or I can do and wringing our hands about it is a waste of time.
3:31 is absolutely correct. So let’s make the best of it by drafting the absolute hottest female lawers to run in judicial elections. Get the best looking babes from the entire legal community and make them judges. No fatties, uglies, or oldies. If we can’t have a good bench, we can at least have a hot bench!
#bringbacktheboobiesbench
Finally a hashtag I can support
The hashtag needs all the support it can get.
Great idea!!
If I were wittier I’d respond and use “motorboating” in my post somewhere. But alas I’m just a dumb divorce lawyer.
☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻
CABAAAAAAAL!!!!!!!
The last time I said, eh, I don’t know either of the candidates so why not vote for the woman, that woman was Halvorsen. Learned my lesson with that one.
Maybe blawg master not watching on weekends so much and I can slide in some Trump praise. Let me test this. MAGA forever!! JD 2028. Trump rules!!! #SitDownRachel
Noteworthy. For the billion dollars spent on a certain candidate, we could have built the entire wall.
As Border Czar perhaps she could have thought of that instead of giving Oprah another million. When will politicians on both sides get it that we simply want to raise our families, afford eggs, have a reasonable career, etc. I can’t remember when all these liberal social issue positions ever worked and I’m getting old haha
Affordable/universal healthcare – liberal policy
Public education for all – liberal policy
Student loan forgiveness – liberal policy
5 day work week – liberal policy
40 hour work week – liberal policy
Overtime – liberal policy
Minimum wage – liberal policy
Religious freedom – liberal policy
Unions (including training, apprenticeships, etc) – liberal policy
I’m not sure what you think the republicans and trump specifically have done on any of the 3 issues you listed, but those are not republican values. Those are liberal values supported by liberal policy. And it’s not your opinion that matters. These are facts. Use those research skills you honed during the pandemic and go online and read about it.
Wow homie, you could not be more wrong.
Religious freedom is a liberal policy?
Also, exactly where do his three concerns fit into any of your drivel.
The implied from his post is that he wants to do these three things WITHOUT government interference.
NOT a liberal policy.
Your analysis is fatally flawed.
When the so-called founding fathers left England, they did so because they allegedly wanted to practice their religion free from interference from the state. In England they were persecuted and treated as heretics. They were not looked at as conservative folks. It was wildly progressive (i.e. liberal) for anyone to think that they were entitled to practice any religion they wanted. My analysis is not wrong. You just do not understand or know history.
The other parts are your comment are just…ok dude. Do you think people just magically got a 5 day work week? Do you think that companies happily pay overtime? If you’re working 80 hours a week, what kind of family life do you think you’d have. Government policy is a reflection of our values. All the things I listed are government policies that reflect liberal social values and support the 3 things listed by 9:53. Just keep drinking the koolaid. Drink a lot more of it, please.
Contra point
Most of what you describe are the result of capitalism (yes, there is a populous element too, but which would have not been possible without rising affluence). Consider that increased wealth for the nation made:
– a public policy for universal education possible (although it appears that has turned into just a place to park the kids for 12 years),
– 5 day work week and overtime
– Medicare (only possible for an affluent country)
and so forth.
That said, religious freedom is under attack. The right to free speech is under attack, governmental and media bias is on the rise.
@11:35 that’s simply wrong. None of those things were given and they had nothing to do with the wealth of the nation. Unions fought for decades to obtain those basic considerations on the job. You’re also comparing apples to oranges. Medicare is something that we pay into via our social security taxes. That is not something that is given to us by a wealthy nation. We pay for it. It is literally our money that we are entitled to when we reach a certain age.
Sorry, it is not that simple. Without rising wealth the socialist things you name would not have been possible. People pay into SS because they have INCOME.
The societal things dear to you only happen when there is money to pay for them.
As to the comment that “it is literally our money we are entitled to…” is completely not factual. Messaging on this blog is too short to fully explain, but you can research it.
You are mistaken. The people have income not because of a so-called wealthy nation. They have income because liberal policies like overtime and minimum wage gave it to them. Corporations never have and never will be motivated by simple largess to do right by their workers. The nation can have lots of wealth and that does not translate to regular people having money.
Capitalism works.
This is a clown take. Alternative facts, if you will.
Bwahahahahahaha.
NOW you are going to cite the founding fathers. How fucking convenient.
GTFOH. Well, they WERE progressive which equates to modern progressive theory. Kind of like how the 40s and 50s democrats were all segregationists and the republicans were not.
You are just ridiculous.
Ad hominem attacks are my favorite. It shows that I’m talking to a very sophisticated rhetorician.
Religious freedom is a republican platform? Christianity is “claimed” to be republican, but that is not religious freedom. What you mean is you want your religion to be forced upon others. You don’t want government interference for woke issues, but want them for things you believe. That is not freedom.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I said “social” issues. Maybe we define those differently. Yes, liberalism has produced some good stuff. My grandpa was a union organizer so I got a lot of that growing up. I’m referring to the trans, woke, dei stuff. I haven’t seen that resonate. But i appreciate the civil discussion.
I don’t understand what you mean by “trans, woke, dei stuff.” If you’re talking about depriving people of basic human rights, we have a disagreement. Also, ignoring DEI is bad business. Time and time again marketing departments and major corporations embarrass themselves by doing things that one single woman or person of color on the marketing team would have caught before it turned into a publicity disaster. Gucci and Prada are the first that come to mind, but Nike has had some that come to mind as well. Diversity just makes sense for businesses and that’s about as capitalistic as you can get.
Ugggh. You are exhausting.
Thank you. I appreciate you letting me know. I shall redouble my efforts.
Enjoy the sound of your own voice much?
Eff it. I am done for the day so peace out!
Not really. My voice isn’t that good and my singing voice is worse. But I can’t hear blog comments. Are you hearing the blog comments? Are you hearing my voice as you read this?
Open border with no control – liberal policy
innocent Americans getting killed by illegals – liberal policy
allow rampant thievery, smash and grabs – liberal policy
allow hard core drugs to be legal (Oregon & Washington) – liberal policy
don’t let police do their jobs – liberal policy
Wokeism – liberal policy
DEI – liberal policy
let juvenile kids (with schools help) become trans w/o parens knowledge – liberal policy
let me into women’s sports – liberal policy
give billions to IRAN – liberal policy
give hundreds of billions to Ukraine – liberal policy
put illegals before homeless and veterans – liberal policy
and i can go on
“don’t let police do their jobs” I’m confused by this. Is it the pushback against the police’s violation of constitutional rights that you view as a liberal policy, or is it the demand for compensation as a result of police exceeding their authority?
Because I remember not so long ago and not so far from here when conservatives screamed about the idea of a police state, and would loudly proclaim (and arm themselves) against federal employees just trying to do their job and enforce the law. Or is the “conservative” policy that the police should have a free rein to enforce their version of the law, as long as the enforcement happens against people conservatives don’t like?
How about defund the police. . . . .
Isn’t that the ultimate conservative dream? A situation in which individual liberty is held paramount? Freed from the crushing imposition of rules and regulations? Freed from the police and other agencies that enforce them?
@4:15 ok now do abortions…and IVF…and birth control.
Conservatives believe in two groups of people. The group they belong to, to whom the benefits of the laws apply but none of the consequences, and the “others,” to whom the consequences apply but none of the benefits.
@1:13 you ok bruh?