Goldbricking judges a farce

This commission, of which there are two varieties — one for the Nevada Supreme Court and one for the state District Court — exists to circumvent the Nevada Constitution.

The "problem" Nevada legislators sought to fix was pay "inequity" for judges. The constitution clearly states that elected officials — including judges — may be paid only whatever the going salary was at the time they were elected. If a pay increase is implemented mid-term, they must wait until they are re-elected to collect the higher pay.

For example, on Jan. 1, District Court judgeships went to $160,000 a year, up from $130,000. But this higher pay can be given only to judges elected after Jan. 1. All others, according the state constitution, will have to wait until re-elected. Pay for Supreme Court justices on Jan. 1 went from $140,000 to $170,000 per year, with the same restriction.

With me so far? I’m sure you are.

Judges didn’t like this part of the state constitution because they are elected for six years and, let’s face it, nobody likes to miss out on a pay raise. But instead of trying to amend the constitution, legislators and judges decided — I’ll refrain from using the word "conspired" — to create a quick-fix workaround.

And so the law library commissions were born.

Here’s how it works: Judges who do not constitutionally qualify for mid-term pay increases sit on a law library commission, do virtually nothing and get paid $30,000 in hard-to-come-by taxpayer money to equalize their pay with the newer judges.

I kid you not. That’s what lawmakers and law-deciders did, and they’re not even trying to pretend otherwise. Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison (if you don’t read her regularly, you should) first brought this to light for me. She reviewed the record from 2001 and found clear evidence that the intent of the Legislature was to circumvent the constitution without so much as a wink and nod.

Now, before I conclude this rant, I want to make an ancillary point. Even at the higher pay on Jan. 1, judges probably don’t make enough in Nevada. If a judge is hard-working and energetic, taxpayers get a flat-out bargain with a Supreme Court justice at $170k and a District Court judge at $160k. A diligent and thoughtful lawyer can make three times that in private practice. Greasy TV lawyers can make 10 times that.

However, it must also be said that we have judges who don’t work all that hard. Some are less-than-average attorneys who have long gone to seed on the bench, handling a fraction of the caseloads of the better judges.

But let’s leave goldbricking judges aside for the sake of this argument and say that they’re all worthy of higher pay.

The legislative maneuvers that are the library commissions are absolutely, foursquare not the way to fix the "problem." While I’m no "Heavy Hitter" when it comes to vagaries of the law, I like to think I demonstrate a fair amount of common sense when I ask: This can’t be constitutional, can it?

 

Heath Ledger

You know you’re old and decrepit when you read the story about how actor Heath Ledger died and you recognize from personal experience half the pain killers that were in his system.

 

Things worth reading …

I run into items for which time and space prohibit a fuller examination in this column. So rather than just let them disappear in the dark hole called the Internet, I thought it worthwhile to collect them as I find them and point them out to you for further review.

First up is this question: Is Hillary Clinton being truthful when she says she has 35 years of relevant experience for the White House?

The Washington Bureau for McClatchy Newspapers endeavored to find out.

The bottom line: "The whole story is more complicated — and less flattering."

To read the full story, go to www.lvrj.com/sherm.

 

Hillary redux

A few readers challenged last week’s column in which it was pointed out that Hillary inappropriately used her gender when she called Nevada Democrats before our caucus to ask: "Isn’t it about time we had a woman in the White House?"

To which I respond: Look, there is nothing wrong with voters identifying with candidates in a number of different ways. I admit that if I were king, it would be based only on ideology. But I know some will gravitate to a candidate based on gender, faith and skin color. But that’s far different from a candidate playing on those "attributes" to pander for votes.

For example, how’d it sound to you if Mitt Romney called and said: "Vote for me because I believe in God." Or Barack Obama called and said: "Vote for me because I’m black."

I think you’d be pretty disgusted with that kind of campaign tactic. All should reject Hillary’s low-down tactic of pandering for votes based on gender. It’s not appropriate, and it’s not presidential.

 

Sherman Frederick is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media. Readers may write him at sfrederick@reviewjournal.com.