Phil wrote on May 22, 2008 07:56 AM: Some harsh comments for poor little Miss Duffy! I am not sure she should even stick to her day job though. By the looks of it, either she missed a couple math 101 classes like the previous reader wrote, or she already has mastered the art of bending the rule (which no politician that respects him or herself would ever do)....Aren't we tired of these people yet, especially in our court system. It's about time someone dotted the Is and crossed the Ts, without compromise. Duffy's weasling ways won't get her MY vote, but I would hire her as an attorney to explain to the judge (and my wife) that the bet I had with the almost 18 year old girl (HEY!!, UNKNOWINGLY) for $100 that she couldn't pleasure me, was GAMBLING not Prostitution. To convince a committee to side on her favor took real skills!!! (or did it???)
Oh, I forgot, I could use some help with my landscaping too, what do you say Duffy??

P. Dedieu wrote on May 21, 2008 04:12 PM: Considering the ruling in favor of Duffy, I think it'd would also be fair that the voters supporting her came to vote on the same day the canditate takes office!! How's that for math and fairness??
In addition, and maybe it's just me, but the title says it all doesn' it? "Candidate didn't KNOWINGLY violate practices", ok so she unknowingly violated them, well don't we all feel better now? What's next, didn't knowingly drink before age 21? Didn't knowingly purchase cigarettes before age 18? Well I guess we can look forward to some interesting rulings if this math wizards ever gets the job!

urnuts wrote on April 29, 2008 02:33 PM: She probably had sex with the board. What a cop out? The board members are graduates from CCSD. It would be like saying I didn't kill him - the bullet did.

fluffy wrote on April 29, 2008 11:21 AM: Well a legislature would NEVER be known for abiguity, now, would they?

UNLVStud wrote on April 29, 2008 11:04 AM: I think the only true debate to be had is on whether "election" means Primary or General election.

A person may not be a candidate for or be eligible to the office of district judge unless he has been an attorney licensed and admitted to practice law ... for a total of not less than 10 years at any time preceding his election or appointment... NRS 3.060(1)(c).

Read in context, "election" is used the same as appointment. Appointment means the selection of somebody for a position, office, or job. Normally, an appointment selection is the final selection in a process. Thus "election" means the final selection of an individual to that office. Therefore, it is likely that "election" means a general election; not a primary.

It's doubtful that "election" could be read to mean the day they take office. Otherwise the Legislature would have said "at the time the candidate takes office or is appointed. Again, when read in context, appointment does not necessarily mean the day an individual takes office. This is especially true of political appointments where individuals must take an oath before officially taking office. Thus it would be a stretch to hold that "election" means the day a candidate takes office.

Looks like Duffy should stick to day job because he doesn't meet the qualifications of office.

uh-huh wrote on April 29, 2008 08:54 AM: Looks like political party affililiation played a part in the ruling, huh?

Daniel is so right, "election" is the day they stand before the voters and in this case that would be the primary election and not the general election (how the dim wits came up with "day candidate takes office" demonstrates a gross incompetence and thus Gibbons should remove them from the Board).

Daniel wrote on April 29, 2008 07:17 AM: Thank Clinton for all this. DEFINE IS
Does not define Election day. When i go to vote, is that not called ELECTION DAY. Where in the hell do people come from. So did she practiced law on what day? on the day she recieved the letter or the day she entered her first court room hired as a ? Actually she did not start her job as a? until 1999. Define when she started practicing.

b wrote on April 29, 2008 06:08 AM: Hey Maskall how bout taking it one step further, lawyers can not run for judge, then maybwe we could get a real judge in clark county

Mama Bear wrote on April 29, 2008 04:42 AM: Good for Maskall. It's long overdue to check the credibility of those running for office.