Groups threatening recall of Nevada Supreme Court justices

KRNV News ^ | July 17, 03 | Associated Press

[churchillbuff]

Groups threatening recall of Nevada Supreme Court justices

A recall effort could be launched as early as today against one or more Nevada Supreme Court justices.

No official notice has been filed. But Nevadans for Tax Restraint says there'll be a rally to highlight the issue at 4:30 Thursday afternoon at the Grant Sawyer state building in Las Vegas.

Conservative groups including the Nevada Eagle Forum and the Republican Liberty Caucus say Chief Justice Deborah Agosti and five other justices were wrong to set aside a constitutional provision that state tax increases pass by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Leaders of the effort say they intend to announce this morning in Las Vegas when they'll start collecting the thousands of signatures they'd need to put a recall measure before voters.

[Theodore R.]

Also, isn't it likely that these liberal NV judges would simply declare a recall of the judiciary unconstitutional on grounds that only the judiciary can "interpret" law? Who said NV is a conservative state?

[snopercod]

Hey! There's a "q" behind your name! ROFL!

[David75]

Based on my knowledge of constitutional law and what little I know of Nevada law, I have to disagree with you. If there is a fundamental right to education AND a 2/3 requirement for tax increases in Nevada's constitution, then BOTH requirements must be met.

Thus, if the legislature refuses to pass a tax increase to provide for schools, education must be provided by other means, such as reallocating money from other parts of the budget. The right to education can not trump the 2/3 requirement, nor can the 2/3 requirement trump education.

[snopercod]

Good on you for actually reading the decision.

[AntiGuv]

Some states have a 'statutory precedence' clause or some similar construct whereby one clause or amendment may be declared in conflict with another, thereby superceding one or the other. I'm uncertain about Nevada, but I would generally agree with your statement FWIW.

[Drango]

Some states have a 'statutory precedence' clause or some similar construct

OK, but the court didn't have to rule that one clause was "better" than another and then reduce the constitutional rquirement from 2/3 to a majority.

The courts (and the legislature) can fund schools by REDUCING SPENDING in other areas. This is so like, Duh!

[AntiGuv]

I'm definitely not arguing that the court did the right thing, just that I don't know enough to know what to really think.. LOL. I wouldn't even remark on the matter if I hadn't been pinged..

[monkeyshine]

Good for the people of Nevada. It's high time the people started taking charge of things in this country. The politicians have no care other than politics itself, the people and the Constitutions be damned.

[pogo101]

I've read the two opinions in the court case. Neither one so much as mentions the possibility of reducing spending (presumably in areas other than education). So you're dead on: what's so shocking, and so telling, about the opinions is the presumption that budget-balancing in the face of a projected deficit can only be done one way, by upping taxes.

[aristeides]

Under U.S. constitutional law, where two provisions of the U.S. Constitution conflict, the court will hold for the later of the two provisions in time. Thus, in its recent federalism decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the 11th Amendment supersedes provisions of the original Constitution like the Commerce Clause, since the amendment is later in time. On the other hand, it does not supersede the 14th Amendment, which is later in time than the 11th. The theory is that, if there is a conflict, the ratifiers of the later amendment are presumed to have been aware of it, and to have chosen to supersede the earlier provision.

Isn't the part of the Nevada Constitution requiring a 2/3 vote relatively recent?

[tortoise]

Isn't the part of the Nevada Constitution requiring a 2/3 vote relatively recent?

1996, a *hugely* popular set of handcuffs to keep the government out of people's wallets, easily passing the two-thirds super-majority required (twice) to pass it. There will be much political carnage before this is over. People are absolutely furious, and Nevadans aren't known to be fond of government interfering with their will, having a rather notorious libertarian bent.

[jimkress]

Groups threatening recall of Nevada Supreme Court justices

Talk is cheap. Either do it or go away.

[Hildy]

My father used to say that judges have become the high priests of the past. Then, decisions were made by wise men acting with moral obligation. Because we've gutted religion from our society, we've allowed these men in black to make these kinds of decisions.

[randita]

The NV Legislature could have averted this mess and could still do so, by decoupling the tax increase from the education budget and bring each up for a vote. Of course, the tax increase would fail and that is not acceptable to the RINO governor and the Democrat controlled Legislature. The dimwitted have really made themselves a mess.

It should be an easy task to gather the necessary signatures. Just cruise the casinos in LV and Reno on a Saturday night. That's all the effort it would take.

[cjohnson7771]

Why suspend federal spending to Nevada and do additional harm to the citizens of that state? The people are already being abused by the powers of their government. The last thing they need is to be penalized in order to punish the few who deserve it.

[djreece]

You are correct that "judicial Oligarchy" is what it is. I read an article the other day that used the phrase that we now live in a judicial republic rather than a constitutional republic (in the sense that the Supreme Court has become the ultimate arbiter of our rights and liberties rather than the Constitution). I liked the interplay of the terms and chose to use them here, but your term is more accurate and probably clearer in this context. Thank you.

[vannrox]

Nevada Law Library
Copyright © 2003 by State of Nevada

---

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) are the actual Laws. The Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) are Rules and Regulations. The Nevada Register is Rules and Regulations that are proposed, or have been adopted, but not codified into the NAC. Supreme Court Opinions are decisions made on Nevada Law by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Nevada Revised Statutes (2001)
	Table of Contents Index Search
Nevada Constitution
	Admission Acts
City Charters
Selected Special and Local Acts
Nevada Administrative Code
	Table of Contents Index Search
	Comparative Table
	Form for 10- Year Review
Nevada Register
	Table of Contents
Court Rules
Supreme Court Opinions
	Table of Contents Search

Legislative Measures      (Including Statutes)
	18th Special Session (2002)
		Table of Contents Index Search Resolutions & Memorials
	17th Special Session (2001)
		Table of Contents Index Search Resolutions & Memorials
	71st Session (2001)
		Table of Contents Index Search Resolutions & Memorials
	70th Session (1999)
		Table of Contents Index Search Resolutions & Memorials

Disclaimer 

---

This information is prepared as an informational service only and should not be relied upon as an official record of action. For official records, please refer to the printed version of the appropriate official publication which may be obtained from Legislative Publications

[Atlas Sneezed]

"The courts (and the legislature) can fund schools by REDUCING SPENDING in other areas. This is so like, Duh!"

They can also fund schools by doing so frugally. There is no reason that the bloated education budget increases are needed to "fund education."

[Torie]

Yep. I was an enthusiastic supporter of operation dump. As you know, one of Bird's problems was that she never met a killer she didn't like, and thus refused to uphold any death penalties (more than 50 or so perhaps). I remember watching with a friend Bird's concession speech, quite drunk, and was shreiking for Bird to use her line about the California Supreme Court should not be a "house of death." I wanted to here it one last time(chamber of death would have had a better ring to it, but whatever). And voila, suddenly the words came bouncing right out of her mouth. Bird came through for me, and it was grand.

[Grampa Dave]

Actually Bird lost a recall election. This website will tell you about the Gentlemen who successfully led the last recall election of Bird.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/or/vote/rackauckas_t/bio.html

California for a Responsible Supreme Court Founding member and Chairman, 1980 to 1982. Established a statewide group in order to successfully recall California Chief Justice Rose Bird.

Recall Rose Bird Alliance Founder and Executive Director, 1981 to 1983. Established a statewide group in order to successfully recall California Chief Justice Rose Bird.