Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

News
Dec. 10, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

JANE ANN MORRISON: Critic of Supreme Court justice sees good reason for appointing judges

JANE ANN MORRISON
MORE COLUMNS

Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta is about to get a scathing critique, as a law review article for the prestigious Northwestern Law School in Chicago examines her election in 2006 and calls her unqualified for the job.

While on the District Court, Saitta "was the most reversed District Court Judge in Nevada and was an extremely inefficient lower court judge who had not published a single opinion or academic article," wrote Bronson Bills, a law clerk for a federal judge in Utah.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • NORM: Simpson planned acquittal party
  • DOUG ELFMAN: Angel's 'Believe' magic: Miffed fans disappear
  • PALACE STATION ROBBERY: O.J. Simpson guilty
  • PALACE STATION ROBBERY: O.J. Simpson guilty
  • LV house is a bargain for under $8 million
  • HOA INVESTIGATION: Retired officer found dead
  • NORM: Wynn ready for another big finish
  • Airport scanner peers through clothing
  • NORM: O.J. leans against leaving Las Vegas
  • LEASE-BACK DEALS: Condominium owners file lawsuit
  • NORM: Illusionists given royal recognition



    • "Moreover, not only was Saitta unqualified for the Supreme Court, she was tied to several wealthy special interest groups who sought to oust Justice (Nancy) Becker."

    Bills was a law clerk for Saitta during the last seven months of 2006 and a former law clerk for Senior District Court Judge James Brennan. His article "A Penny for the Court's Thoughts? The High Price of Judicial Elections" is scheduled to appear in the Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy in January.

    Saitta declined to comment on the specifics of Bills' article, although I e-mailed the quotes above to her.

    She e-mailed back: "I simply have no way to provide any meaningful comment on a article that I have not read."

    Bills' research concluded the Supreme Court race between Saitta and Becker represents the first major judicial election in which an incumbent judge was ousted on the basis of a single, unpopular civil decision. Justices have lost elections based on their handing of criminal cases, but Bills said it's historic to be unseated because of a civil case.

    (I have to disagree with him that it was a single civil case. Justice Becker also gained enemies and bad press from ruling on an eminent domain case.)

    But the major case that drew the wrath of the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial page was Guinn vs. Nevada State Legislature. The 2003 case involved a budget stalemate that prompted Gov. Kenny Guinn to ask the justices to decide whether a two-thirds majority of the Legislature was necessary to pass the budget bills, or just a simple majority. The court ruled a super-majority was not necessary because of conflicting language in the Nevada Constitution. Six of the justices signed the opinion saying the constitutional requirement to fund education outweighed the super-majority requirement approved by the voters.

    After the opinion, the Legislature managed to pass the budget bills with a two-thirds majority anyway.

    Bills pointed out that the opinion was legally justified, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal.

    The anti-tax Review-Journal editorial page blasted the justices repeatedly. Two of the six who signed the opinion, Bob Rose and Deborah Agosti, decided not to run again. Becker was the first to face the voters.

    Ginned up by media criticism and financial support from Becker's foes, Saitta challenged the incumbent justice and won.

    Bills called it "an election which will likely go down as one of the more embarrassing and judicially debasing State Supreme Court elections in our nation's history."

    "Qualifications did not matter in this election as Saitta put the entire focus of the election on the Guinn case," Bills wrote.

    Bills argued (and I agree with him) the Becker-Saitta race is compelling evidence that electing judges is a mistake. He suggested the Legislature amend the state constitution to eliminate judicial elections and create an appointment system. The governor would appoint and the state Senate would confirm. Judges would serve one 12-year term under this proposal, and then they would be out.

    By eliminating the retention vote used in the Missouri plan, the money scramble is also eliminated.

    Other merit selection ideas are also on the table, but Bills' proposal is worth a look.

    Review-Journal Editor Thomas Mitchell is gagging as he reads this column because he is a strong advocate of open elections. But I'm despairing of a few judges elected recently, and I'm open to a fix.

    What's the difference between a president nominating a judge confirmed by the U.S. Senate and a governor nominating a judge confirmed by a state Senate?

    One's a lifetime appointment, but that's a system that seems to have worked much of the time without violating the constitutional separation of powers.

    And there's always the impeachment process.

    Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0275.



    Leave Your Comment 111 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    RJNeedsAnEditor wrote on December 17, 2007 12:34 AM: Undercover:

    You always seem to be implying there's some dark evil mysterious conspiracy lurking just beneath the surface. Apparently, you are the only one who has been able to figure it out. "Connect the dots?" WHAT are you talking about?

    Why don't you just spill the secret beans. I think everybody wants to know what the h&%$ you're talking about. I'm interested to know what your story is.

    Is Al Quaida, or the Mormon Church, or the Vatican buying and selling judges/politicians right here in Nevada? Are the Masons, Shriners, or Rotarians behind it all?? Are the black helicopters gonna be landing soon? Should we all be getting ready to board a comet? What is it we'll know when all "the dots" have been connected??

    Maybe you should get some rest and try not to forget to take your medicine. It will help a lot with the voices.


    undr covr us wrote on December 16, 2007 02:19 PM: dosboot good job!

    That's how you connect the dots. Same can be done with Cherry and others throughout the state.

    Dig a little deeper and there may be some prosecuteable revelations.

    BTW this should encourage the general public to do the same.


    dosboot wrote on December 16, 2007 10:43 AM: Take at look at these contributions to Judge Saitta's campaign:
    strawberry flats: $10,000 resident agent: STACY M ROCHELEAU, Manager: JOSEPH LAMARCA

    Lamarca/Doyle: $10,000 resident agent: STACY M ROCHELEAU, Manager: JOSEPH LAMARCA

    Willin, LLC: $10,000 resident agent: STACY M ROCHELEAU, Manager: JOSEPH LAMARCA

    All of the entities appear to have the same address: 3355 S Highland, Suite 112, LV NV


    RJNeedsAnEditor wrote on December 15, 2007 05:33 PM: MORRISON'S HATCHET JOB ON SAITTA

    Today I undertook a fairly tedious search to find the number of scholarly publications by the justices of Nevada Supreme Court. With a couple of notable exceptions, most of the justices have not published works in law journals and law reviews.

    I wonder why in Jane Anne Morrison's mind, this makes Saitta unqualified for Supreme Court, but it's not an issue when it comes to the other justices?

    Likewise, I searched reported cases in which the justice (as an attorney) argued on behalf of client in a case that was reported. Some of the justices have no cases, most have one or two. A couple had several.

    Morrison made the completely false accusation that Saitta had no reported cases prior to becoming a judge. It's apparently not relevant to Morrison that some of the justices have the same or fewer reported cases.

    It is generally not true that district court judicial opinions are published. A handful of states, New York, Iowa, and others, do publish district court judicial opinions. I am told that Nevada does not.

    There is an electronic database of "trial court orders" from district court judges in Nevada. The orders are considered "non-published." Nonetheless, Saitta has as many or more entries in the database than other justices/judges.

    The truth of course that "scholarly publications" are rarely published by sitting judges. And reported cases are not an accurate measuring stick of judicial competence.

    THE FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE IS WHY MORRISON WANTS TO IMPEACH SAITTA FOR HAVING THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS AS THE MALE JUSTICES ON THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT.

    Morrison has done very serious damage to the reputation of a Nevada Supreme Court justice for no good reason whatsoever. It's really quite disgusting.


    RJNeedsAnEditor wrote on December 15, 2007 02:06 PM: Um, Stacey, still waiting for those citations... Seriously, if what you're saying is true, I'd be interested. The problem with making a claim that something is the "first," "only", or any other superlative, is that it's just a matter of time until somebody proves you wrong.


    Stacey wrote on December 15, 2007 01:58 PM: RJ, you are hopeless. Enjoy fortifying your own illusions.


    RJNeedsAnEditor wrote on December 15, 2007 01:54 PM: Now that I start to look at things here, it seems like there *might* be some sitting Supreme Court/District Court judges who haven't had cases they argued reported. Saitta isn't one of them.

    I wonder why Morrison made the false accusation Saitta had never argued a reported case but ignored others on the Supreme and District Courts for whom the accusation is more likely true?

    I'd also love to know how many "scholarly publications" everyone else has had relative to Saitta.

    Let's face it, Morrison has taken out the long knives and gone after Saitta.


    RJNeedsAnEditor wrote on December 15, 2007 01:42 PM: Better yet, since the claim is that Saitta defeated a highly competent sitting Supreme Court Justice, please provide a few citations district court cases that Nancy Becker "published as a sitting District Court Judge." That should be fairly easy I'd think.


    RJNeedsAnEditor wrote on December 15, 2007 01:31 PM: Stacy: Let's randomly pick a district court judge, say Jennifer Taggliati. Can you provide a citation to an opinion she published, as a sitting judge, that wasn't appealed? I guess that would be an opinion she wrote on a district court case that was just so insightful that it was published.

    These millions of un-appealed opinions written by Nevada district court judges, where are they reported and published? What is the reason for their publication since they don't set precedent?


    rjneedsaneditor2 wrote on December 15, 2007 01:19 PM: concede you are wrong...it is the only way to save face on this wone. You are wrong and you know it.


    Read All Comments