Stephen Gianelli wrote on June 17, 2008 01:37 PM: Dear 9:27 AM:

To answer your questions:

1. The Nevada Supreme Court is not the body who" passed the law" (creating Halverson’s 2 year judicial term of office) that Halverson seeks to invalidate. The law was passed by the Nevada legislature, as are all other statutes; the justices are not "ruling on their own ruling". Statutes are passed the legislature, and reviewed by the courts. These are two separate branches of government (respectively, the “legislative branch”, and the “judicial branch”).

2. "Why was this not moved to a higher different court?"--There is no higher or different appellate court in Nevada. While most states have intermediate courts of appeal, the only appellate court in NV is the Supreme Court. The matter cannot go to the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court) because the case Halverson filed is based Nevada Law and the Nevada Constitution, and not federal law or the United States Constitution.

3. Anyone who watched the video of the hearing (it can be watched on the Las Vegas Now web site) knows that a) the justices are very skeptical of Halverson's argument and b) that if the justices accept that the law creating her 2 year office is unconstitutional, at least two justices will simply vote to eliminate her judicial seat altogether.

4. Did Halverson "hold her own" at the Supreme Court hearing? The sly smile on one of the justice's faces when he said "Judge Halverson, I think we understand your argument" answered that question in the negative. In my opinion, Halverson would have been better off having an attorney argue for her.

correptjudges wrote on June 16, 2008 09:27 AM:
I just have one question..

How is it that the Supreme Court Judges who passed the law in order to line their pockets and those of their kind have not recused themselves?

How can they rule on an issue that they passed?

Is there any doubt they will rule that their unconstitutional decision was appropriate? They are the one's who passed it in the first place.

Why was this not moved to a higher different court?

How can they rule on their own ruling?????

Oh, and regardless if you like Halverson or not, she most certainly held her own in front of the Supreme Court. Not only that, she IS correct regarding the constitution. While the Supreme Court Judges made faces, showed their irritation with even having to be accountable for their flagrant disrespect of the constitution, Halverson showed she truly is an excellent attorney and truly understands and interprets the law.

undr cvr wrote on June 15, 2008 12:32 PM: Its okay to be mad as long as its consructive. Panties in a bunch tantrums is not unlike the drama in the 'Judicial Hellhole'
Rise above it.

VIVALAUGHLIN wrote on June 14, 2008 10:22 PM: zebra123- do you have a poll that says that people agree with your view? Do you know how few people even read the RJ? I was surprised when I was at an event that Halverson attended and people flocked to her. The public doesn't necessarily believe this stuff as they know Nevada's judiciary is completely corrupt. Anybody that they try to get rid of in the first couple of months, must be a threat. Most of the people there, and it was an event with multiple candidates, seem to have an open mind and were waiting to see what comes out at the hearing. Its a shame that you don't and are willing to convict on rumour and innuendo. Hopefully you will never be a juror for me or a loved one. that would be too scary.

Honest writer- How honest can you be when you are another one of those fakers who hates Halverson. This blog is about whether the Constitution says 2 or 6 years. Whatever Halverson did is a trial issue and the hearing yeaterday had nothing to do with it. if you want to pay an extra 1.25 million to these ethically challenges judges like Mosley (who has been convicted) or others whose complaints were buried, be my guest. But I think that they get paid enough and whether two ton Lizzie or the devil himself brings up that I am being ripped off by these greedy judges who are undermining the Constitution to line their pockets, it makes no difference. Give me my money! And by the way why is Lizzie two tons but Cherry not? Is it an anti woman thing?

Sickof theZooCrew wrote on June 14, 2008 09:58 PM: Tim or should I say, Eileen, where you there when Halverson was sleeping? If so, are you one of the witnesses for the hearing? If not, then what do you know? NOTHING. So you have proof of anything about Halverson? If so and you are a witness, tell us who you are so we can watch you and your proof. Otherwise you are a prejudiced, bigoted, anti American, anti constitution wuss with a fetish for fat girls. If you do love those fat girls, Eileen or Tim or whomever you are, then you 9of course you are Eileen) are rapidly approaching Halverson weight. We all saw you on TV yesterday you round mound of ticket fixing lying scum. With you equally morbidly obese corrupt, ignorant, ehtically challenges, Super Bowl party attending for fixing jury duty patron Cherry. You can run fatties but you can't hide.

And by the way, Eileen, don't think we the public don't know who you are. When posting on the board, try not to be so adament about things, it over plays your hand. If you really are Tim, then did fat Lizzie reject you or are you just too stupid to know that what you read in newspapers are neither proof or the truth? If you are just another hater, then don't comment on the law. And if you ever get a brain then try using it to wait for PROOF before making up your mind.

tmosley wrote on June 14, 2008 04:37 PM: My issues are not with Mosley, Halverson, or even Hardcastle on a personal level. Halverson, ironically may very well have become a messenger for the people. It should concern everyone when Supreme Court Justices enact law. That should be left for the legislature. Add to that, the fact that the law in question was designed to manipulate our constitution in order to facilitate additional income for judges. How many judges have benefited from that law, and who of those now sit on the Supreme Court, hearing this case. The law is unconstitutional, contributing enormously to our budget deficit, and benefiting only judges. Then there is the original issue with Hardcastle, simply ignoring the constitution and denying Halverson her rights to due process. We should be terrified of that level of arrogance. If we are willing to accept that, then we have to accept the consequences.

If everyone is equal before the law, but Judges are a little more equal, the people need to understand this. And by allowing the Court to deny Halverson her rights, we are accepting that inequality for everyone. They want us to believe this is about Halverson. While it may have been for many in the beginning, it shouldn't be any longer.

undr cvr wrote on June 14, 2008 04:23 PM: honest writer, Who are you addressing that to?

honest writer wrote on June 14, 2008 03:58 PM: At least Terri Mosley (ex of Judge Mosley is honest enough to put her name.....what about you 2 ton Lizzie? Why don't you put your name on your stupid blogs that try to take the focus away from you but don't. So disgraceful!!!

undr cvr wrote on June 14, 2008 03:48 PM: tim, the judicial itself has been sleeping on the job (or at least turning its back on their duties)longer than Halverson was a topic.

I suggested this yesterday and its been on my mind....'Nevada has never been in worse shape and the general public is tired.
Voters and the general public need to keep a momentum and stand together at the polls for starters.
There should be an open forum other than the RJ as well and a 'move on' type platform with fundraising power that is non-partisan and non bias other than what is overall in the best interest of the people of Nevada.
Partnering in other states with similar like minded organizations is another cog.

We need to get organized and unfragmented.
There is power in numbers and movements cause change.'

Anyone game?

tim wrote on June 14, 2008 02:33 PM: the fudge,i mean judge was sleeping,SLEEPING on the bench for crying out loud.you want to defend her, fine.she is unfit for her job,plain and simple.

Read All Comments