Thursday, February 16, 2012

Elissa Cadish Nominated for Federal Court Judge Position

Congratulations, and good luck to Nevada District Court Judge Elissa Cadish!  She was just nominated by President Barack Obama to fill the seat of U.S. District Court Judge Philip Pro, who recently took senior status. 

More about Judge Cadish: here

36 comments:

  1. Too bad. Clark county's loss, the District of Nevada's gain. I wish her well, but almost hope her nomination falls through so we don't lose one of the better judges

    ReplyDelete
  2. So we have mosley, hardcastle and now cadish out. I can't wait to see the line up of asshats that apply for the jobs. 10-1 Bruce Gale will apply again

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't like President Obama. I don't Democrats as judges. And I'm a Clark County Republican Party official. Judge Cadish will STILL be an excellent judge nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You missed a word/phrase there, Mr. Ross. Let's try to fill in the blank.

    [You] don't ___ Democrats as judges.

    The first thing to come to mind is "snuggle up to." Am I close?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice! I used to _________ Mad Libs as a ___________ child!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like this game. My submission: "peek under the robes of"

    ReplyDelete
  7. 8:40 AM is notoriously early for me; the caffeine from my first mug of Red Rose hadn't kicked in yet. Nonetheless, as someone who has posted an extensive rant solely for the purpose of advocating the greater use of irregular verbs in the English language, I can hardly fault those who hoist me upon my own (lack of) words. Well played!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sign of the Apocalypse: Bruce Gayle is contemplating running for Wolfson's City Council spot. Heaven help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is ELISSA Cadish, not Elizabeth Cadish, as stated erroneously in the title.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Judge Cadish was a Federal Court Judge sitting on the State Court bench already. Her handling of creditors' rights issues is already in lock step with our Federal Bench here in Nevada. With that being said, the real news for me is that it means the withdrawal of underqualified Ariel Stern to the Bench as a political favor from his Godfather

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Jordan Ross, Principal, Ross Legal Search said @ 8:40 am. Yeah, then they wonder why no one follows this blog. It's the responses people make when someone gives an honest appraisal (that's been solicited none-the-less), what they turn it into, as aptly demonstrated by Anonymous@9:20am and law.dawg @9:33 am. Yeah, I can certainly understand why you don't get much traffic through here. This blog lives up to the community-wide reputation that it has earned.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I thought the mad libs reference was funny and Mr. Ross took it well. The reason people probably wouldn't follow this blog is when people get on their high horse and post snobby comments.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @1:20 PM

    Allow me to apologize in advance if my retort fails to reach the level of high-minded sophistry you expect from a blawg. As I take a break from writing motions and oppositions, I occasionally desire a chuckle rather than "honest appraisal" and in-depth analysis.

    That being said, Douche canoe.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ February 17, 2012 1:24 PM --> Snobby comments? Oh, PahLease your kidding right?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey @1:20 PM - you should try loosening up a little.

    I suspect that nearly all of those responsible for the 347 pageviews so far today (except for you), actually understood that we were just having some good natured fun with Mr. Ross.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Those of us who have seen Mr. Ross's presentation to the law school, and presumably his friends and colleagues, know that he has a sense of humor. It's obvious that @9:20 AM was not being mean, just playful. And Mr. Ross took it in the spirit it was intended.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous said...
    @1:20 PM That being said, Douche canoe.

    FYI: Outdated, from last year, WWLII...find something new and interesting, preferably funny too. You know for all those taking breaks from writing motions. They want FUNNY, NOT OLD, NOT FROM LAST YEAR, and not copied from someone else's style. Original would say all that too. Kept it simple here guys and gals, don't want' to get tagged as "snobby".

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ 12:13 PM, thanks for the information - I made the correction.

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://nvsos.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2273

    Above is a link to the Secretary of State's ruling that anyone who wants to run for Mosley's seat will have to get thousands of signatures on a nominating petition. Who's got time to do that? Bruce Gale, et al.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm probably late to the game (I took a long Friday lunch), but I don't think the intention was to mock Mr. Ross. We all make mistakes and I hope most of our readers have enough of a sense of humor to understand that and have fun with it. Mr. Ross sure took it in good humor.

    If I want to be worried about somebody taking my comments the wrong way I'll just make a phone call to an opposing attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 2:15/2:41,

    Double Douche Canoe on you, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ 2:15 and 2:41. Stop. No one cares.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 2:03,

    According to the Clark County Voter Registrar, the last time Department 14 was up for election was in 2008, when 482,000 people voted for a candidate for Dept. 14. So in order to get your name on the ballot, you need 5000 supporters to sign your petition by April 24. If you can't rustle up 5000 supporters (not even voters, but supporters) in two months, you don't belong in any election.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @1:38 PM

    I actually first heard the phrase "Douche canoe" on WWL. One of many useful bits of knowledge derived from that site. Unfortunately, I have not been able to devote the time to keep up on the new hip slang that would be appropriate for describing you/@1:20 PM.

    I guess I've just reached my Honey Badger Limit.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm sorry to 2:15/2:41, I don't generally like to remove comments made by our readers and I am not a fan of censorship, but when you post a FULL docket report of a case that has nothing to do with the topic of the post, you risk having your comments removed.

    If you would like to suggest a topic, such as the judicial system's disparate treatment of media/journalists, please do so and maybe we'll put up a post on that topic. But when readers have to scroll through a whole docket report in two separate posts, it just drags down the flow of the conversation. That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 2:58:

    Two clarifications...You state that a prospective candidate needs
    5000 supporters (voters and non-voters) to sign the petition by April 24.

    However NRS 293.165(2) states that a candidate needs a nominating petition that is (1) signed by registered voters (and only registered eligible voters) which are 1 percent of the number of persons who voted for the office the last time around and (2) the petitions must be submitted by first Tuesday in March (which is March 6th).

    As you state, 482,829 people voted in 2008, meaning that a candidate who receives the memo today will have approximately 20 days to raise 4,829 signatures to get on the ballot. As a means of comparison, Byron Goynes was only able to muster 1,758 signatures for the City Council recall race just conducted (a smaller area/voter base but a more high profile seat).

    ReplyDelete
  29. 3:46,

    2:58 here. I was unclear, and I apologize. I meant that a potential candidate wouldn't even be worrying about the eventual turnout, which is always problematic, but only the number of voters who were willing to sign their name so that the candidate can even get their name on the ballot.

    As far as when the petition can be filed, the statute says it can't be filed any earlier than the first Tuesday in March
    (March 6, 2012) and not later than the fourth Tuesday in April (April 24, 2012). So you have over two months to get the signatures before the April 24 deadline.

    If you want Mosely's seat, you have to get roughly 80 supporters a day from here until the final deadline. If you want to beat the turnout for the loser in the last Dept. 14 election, you need to get over 400 voting supporters every day until the election. Like I said, if you can't get the signatures to get on the ballot in the time you have, you have no business running for an elected office. Hell, "None of these candidates" racked up 100,000 votes against incumbent NSC justices last election.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I suspect 1:20 is the tinfoil hat wearer who has been stalking the blog. S/he is trying to tone down the bizarre and erratic punctuation in an effort not to give him/herself away, but not quite there yet. Posts just always smack of trying way too hard.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Why should someone that wants Mosley's seat (or Hardcastle's or Cadish's) have to circulate a petition when no petition is required to run for the job when it comes open every six months? A close look at the statute relied upon by the SoS reveals that it is probably not applicable. Talks about a vacancy in a nomination; there's a vacancy in the office, not a nomination.

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/21/judge-settlements-reached-41-hepatitus-c-lawsuits/

    This certainly calls into question whether Kemp and Eglet believe the verdicts would have been affirmed on appeal. It's possible that Nevada's Supreme Court would have allowed the verdicts to stand. But who knows what might have happened in the Federal appellate system.

    There are not many jurisdictions in which a theory of liability like this one would have been allowed to see the light of a courtroom. Thank goodness for Nevada's system of elected judges and Clark County's slow-witted jury pool.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Eglet and Kemp hit big twice with different judges.

    Sharp and Friedman hit big with another judge.

    To my knowledge, there was not one defense verdict on one of thes cases.

    There were definitely significant issues of law in dispute, but to say the results at trial were solely because of our slow judges and jurors seems a little bit askew.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nobody will ever convince me these cases should have survived summary judgment. Moreover, taking a step back, does it make sense to anyone that the big pharm companies are picking up the tab for the doctor's screw up. Are doctors really not smart enough to read a label?

    The whole thing nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I am shocked, shocked I say, to learn that this blog’s spell-check is not semi-literate friendly! The legislature is in session – something must be done! Will we allow someone with the intelligence of discarded lottery tickets to have to compete in the marketplace of ideas without “reasonable accommodation”? Obviously this is just another example of the indifference of cold, heartless, sexist, racist, uncaring Republicans, like, uh, well, oh yeah, I guess me.

    The fact is, I understand why many in my party are very uncomfortable with Cadish vis a vis 2nd Amendment rights. I personally got up last year and made a rare speech (as opposed to the endless parliamentary droning I usually do) at the Clark County Republican Central Committee urging the adoption of a General Resolution condemning the NDAA for it’s suspect provisions regarding gun rights (among many other problems).

    That said, if you asked me every week to pick a Democrat for the federal bench, I’d pick Cadish every time. Please don’t let this paranoid, semi-literate, anti-Semitic, toaster brain make you think every conservative thinks like this.

    ReplyDelete