Tag Archives: Brian Sandoval

We Are Not Being Well Served: A Lethal Pattern of Administration Obstruction

We aren’t well served when the Department of Justice declines to work WITH state officials to implement policy.  When the DoJ dithers about assisting Nevada’s attempt to improve the background check process for firearm purchases — [NV Indy] Gee, it almost seems like someone at the federal level is doing a bureaucratic dance routine to subvert the intent of those who want to expand background checks?  Someone doesn’t want to alienate the powers that be at the NRA?  Meanwhile candidate Adam Laxalt, subservient as ever to the NRA line, must be pleased with Governor Sandoval’s discomfort.

We also aren’t well served by the right wing echo chamber which has now evidently decided that if they can’t find logical arguments to deflect the demands made by the kids in March for Our Lives they will happily start tooting the Swift Boat Parade Brigade horns with personal attacks on the kids themselves.  [TampaBT] [WaPo] [KCStar] However, ad hominem is all too often the preferred argument for many on the right side of the political spectrum.  These people might be dismissed as small people with smaller, narrower, minds except that they have the ear of the current mis-administration, and those ears are receiving messages out of step with American concerns.  Listening to these radical voices obscures national issues we should be focusing upon.

Nor are we well served when the message comes from the podium at the White House briefing room that the Department of Justice will take no role in the investigation of the shooting of Sacramento citizen Stephon Clark.  There’s a pattern here.

The FBI will not facilitate the implementation of Nevada’s Question 1 decision. The Department of Justice will take its sweet time promulgating rules concerning the sale of bump stocks (see Las Vegas concert massacre). The Department of Justice will do an about-face on federal participation in the investigation of law enforcement use of lethal force on members of minority communities.  This pattern may explain why the citizens of Nevada continue to be frustrated by the lack of Question 1 implementation, the citizens of the US continue to see protests related to Black Lives Matter, and young people bemoan (and organize) against the inflexible obstruction to their demands for sensible restrictions on gun ownership and sales.

What the pattern won’t accomplish is the solution to any of the problems addressed by the Black Lives Matter organization or the young people involved in March for Our Lives.  The two issue areas are not unrelated.

Bullets fired from guns kill people.  The bullet may be a .223 round (5.56 mm) coming at a person at 3,330 feet per second (about three times the velocity of a typical Glock pistol.) [BI]  The bullets may also come from a Glock 19 or the Glock 22, or perhaps the Smith & Wesson M or P9, the most popular service handguns for law enforcement personnel. [SRI]  Instances of bullets being fired by one human being at another human being, or beings, should be investigated fully.  We have no problem with this concept when thinking about murder investigations in general.  We do have a problem with the concept when it’s in the context of a mass shooting or in a case of the use of lethal force by a police officer.

In the instances of mass shootings authorities appear to want to investigate everything except the actual cause of death — the AR 15 is often the weapon of choice for mass shooters [BI] who want to use the gun as it was designed — to cause the greatest level of lethality in the briefest possible time.  If we know the level of lethality associated with the use of assault style weapons like the AR 15 why don’t we directly address the issue of whether or not these should be in the hands of civilians?

In the instances of officer involved shootings almost the first thing reported is that the “officers feared for their lives.”

“Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.

An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting found that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.” [Guardian 2015]

Question: Why do law enforcement personnel “fear for their lives” more often when confronting a person of color than when facing a white person?  I think we know the answer, it is just that this aspect of the problem isn’t something the present Department of Justice is particularly interested in pursuing.

We aren’t well served by an administration which will not admit the vast scope of the problems presented by mass shooters and highly questionable use of force by some members of law enforcement.  These are national problems which beg for national solutions, whether the current Department of Justice wants to step up to the plate or not.


The kids have broken the 10,000 contract plateau in their Parents Promise To Kids project.  Right now it’s at 10,127.  That’s 10,127 parents, grandparents, and other interested people who have pledged to kids they will make gun reform a major feature in their voting decisions.  Step Up. Thank You.

Comments Off on We Are Not Being Well Served: A Lethal Pattern of Administration Obstruction

Filed under Gun Issues, Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

Scams and Scandals: Is Nothing Enough to Put Nevada Republicans Off Trump?

Trump 1 While the press seems obsessed with ‘foundations’ (especially if discussing the highly rated and respected Clinton Foundation) there was this timeline published on September 6, 2016.

“Trump-Bondi Timeline

August 23, 2013
Donald Trump’s attorneys “launched an aggressive campaign against New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, as the state’s chief law-enforcement officer continues an investigation into the billionaire’s education company.” —WSJ, Aug. 23, 2016

(This is one day before AG Schneiderman filed the suit.)

Mid-Late August 2013
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi “personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump” “several weeks” before Bondi’s “office publicly announced it was deliberating whether to join a multi-state lawsuit proposed by New York’s Democratic attorney general.”

” ‘The process took at least several weeks, from the time they spoke to the time they received the contribution,’ Reichelderfer told AP.” —AP, June 6, 2016

ca. Sept. 10, 2013
Ivanka Trump donates $500 to Bondi (or the PAC?) “a week before her father’s money was reported as being received.” —AP, June 6, 2016

Sept. 13, 2013
Bondi “publicly announced she was considering joining a New York state probe of Trump University’s activities.” —AP, June 6, 2016

Sept. 17, 2013
And Justice For All, political group backing Bondi, “reported receiving” the $25,000 check from Trump foundation. —AP, June 6, 2016

Sept. or October, 2013
“In 2013, [Trump] wouldn’t answer Times/Herald questions about why he was contributing to an attorney general’s race in Florida. But he did release a statement calling Bondi ‘a fabulous representative of the people’ and Schneiderman ‘a political hack.’ ” —Tampa Bay Times, March 14, 2016

“In 2013, Trump acknowledged making the contribution.” [TPM]

Meanwhile in Texas:

In 2009 the state of Texas began an investigation into Trump University,  after complaints surfaced regarding the advertising placed in Texas newspapers:

“The probe began in the fall of 2009, apparently in response to an advertisement that Trump University had placed in the Chronicle, according to an internal memo that Attorney General’s Office lawyer Rick Berlin sent to Owens and three other supervisors.

“The free workshop advertisement advises you to ‘Cash in on the Greatest Property Liquidation in History!’ ” the memo said. “The full one page ad …quotes Donald Trump as saying ‘I can turn anyone into a successful real estate investor, including you.’ The ad further professes that you can buy real estate from banks at up to 70% below market value.” [HoustonChron]

The case progressed:

“Two months later, in January 2010, the Attorney General’s Office notified Trump University it was under investigation for “possible violations of 17.46(a) and 17.46(b) of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act,” records show.

Those provisions prohibit “false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” The notification letter demanded 12 categories of documents.” [HoustonChron]

And when records were released in California regarding Trump’s activities, this emerged:

“Abbott received donations totaling $35,000 from Trump three years after deciding not to sue – the only major donation the New York billionaire has made to a Texas politician in years.” [HoustonChron]

On May 6, 2010 the state of Texas was preparing to file suit and requested a variety of documents from Trump.

“Investigators were scheduled to meet with Trump representatives on May 19, 2010, to pitch the $5.4 million settlement proposal. That meeting never took place, Owens said. Instead, the division received “verbal notification” that the investigation and the lawsuit were over.” [Salon]

So, what has all this to do with Nevada politics?  

The jury is still literally out on the Trump University case, the one in which Mr. Trump famously declared he couldn’t get a fair hearing because the judge (Curiel) is of Mexican heritage – but we can get a bit of information about Nevada candidates for whom the Trump University/Trump Foundation/Trump Institute morass isn’t troubling enough to warrant putting some distance between themselves and at least the “optics” of the Trump scams.

The Reno Gazette Journal published a full list of Nevada politicians who have either endorsed or said they would support Mr. Trump – in spite of the continuing pile of scandals in which he’s involved.  Some of the more notable on the list are:

Gov. Brian Sandoval – Yes

Lt. Gov. Mark Hutchison – Yes

Attorney General Adam Laxalt – Yes

U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei – Yes

U.S. Rep. Joe Heck – Yes

U.S. Rep. Cresent Hardy – Did not respond, but has said he will support the nominee * (yes, see below)

Nevada Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson, Henderson – Yes

Nevada Assembly Majority Leader Paul Anderson, Las Vegas – Yes

State Sen. Don Gustavson, Sparks – Yes

What seems particularly troubling is that when the Governor and the Attorney General are supporting the candidacy of Mr. Trump the ‘optics’ appear that they would not be interested in pursuing any litigation against Mr. Trump’s scams.  Representatives Heck and Amodei seem not concerned enough to distance themselves from the candidacy.

If the Trump University scandal is insufficient incentive to put some distance between themselves and Trump’s candidacy perhaps there are other items which might cause them to back off?

Apparently the housing discrimination scandals of 1973-75 which resulted in Trump agreeing to abandon the discrimination policies and to submit its operations to a regular review by the NY Urban League weren’t enough to make these Nevada politicians wary of Mr. Trump. Nor were Mr. Trump’s machinations involving a Central Park property and the abuse of the residents therein enough to make Nevada politicians nervous? [Atlantic]

Perhaps they find Mr. Trump’s position on immigration policy appealing, but without delving into his immigration practices:

“In order to construct his signature Trump Tower, the builder first had to demolish the Bonwit Teller store, an architecturally beloved Art Deco edifice. The work had to be done fast, and so managers hired 200 undocumented Polish workers to tear it down, paying them substandard wages for backbreaking work—$5 per hour, when they were paid at all.” [Atlantic] Mr. Trump was aware of these practices.  [Time]

There have been other allegations published about Trump’s dealings with his Modeling Agency and the women who were undocumented working there. [Mother Jones]

Nevadans are usually particularly sensitive to casino operation policies. Trump’s were highly questionable – enough so that he’s no longer in the casino business.

“In 1990, with Trump Taj Mahal in trouble, Trump’s father Fred strolled in and bought 700 chips worth a total of $3.5 million. The purchase helped the casino pay debt that was due, but because Fred Trump had no plans to gamble, the New Jersey gaming commission ruled that it was a loan that violated operating rules. Trump paid a $30,000 fine; in the end, the loan didn’t prevent a bankruptcy the following year. As noted above, New Jersey also fined Trump $200,000 for arranging to keep black employees away from mafioso Robert LiButti’s gambling table. In 1991, the Casino Control Commission fined Trump’s company another $450,000 for buying LiButti nine luxury cars. And in 2000, Trump was fined $250,000 for breaking New York state law in lobbying to prevent an Indian casino from opening in the Catskills, for fear it would compete against his Atlantic City casinos.” [Atlantic]

Surely such a record would cause Nevada politicians to retreat from the prospect of supporting Mr. Trump? Evidently not.

Perhaps some highly questionable  name-licensing agreements would be enough to make Nevada politicians uncomfortable?  Especially if the agreements involved real estate transactions?

“In the case of Trump SoHo, in Manhattan, Trump’s partners turned out to have a lengthy criminal past. Trump said he didn’t know that, but—atypically—settled a lawsuit with buyers (while, typically, not admitting any wrongdoing). Another, Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale, went into foreclosure, and Trump has sued the complex’s developer. In 2013, hesettled a suit with prospective buyers who lost millions when a development in Baja Mexico went under. Trump blamed the developers again, saying he had only licensed his name.” [Atlantic]

Either Mr. Trump is not being honest about his relationship with these failed developments, or he is remarkably naive about to whom and under what circumstances he licenses his name?

Would Nevada Republican politicians sound the retreat from the Trump Camp if it were known that Mr. Trump has a track record of stiffing small business owners and employees – the very people the Republicans claim to uphold and protect?  Again, from the Atlantic summation:

“Trump has offered various excuses, including shoddy workmanship, but the scale of the problem—hundreds of allegations—makes that hard to credit. In some cases, even the lawyers Trump has hired to defend him have sued him for failing to pony up their fees. In one lawsuit, a Trump employee admitted in court that a painter was stiffed because managers determined they had “already paid enough.” The cases are damaging because they show Trump not driving a hard bargain with other businesses, but harming ordinary, hard-working Americans.”

USA Today reported:

“Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will “protect your job.” But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them.”

The aforementioned list of Nevada Republican officials and candidates can evidently swallow all manner of scandals involving housing discrimination, employment discrimination, stiffing small businesses, highly questionable casino operation policies, immigration practices (as opposed to empty rhetoric), and publicized infractions of the acceptable ways to use foundation funds —

Perhaps they can sputter about the “e-mails,” a large nothing-burger of specious speculation and Republican investigations of the investigations and the people investigating the investigations … or the Clinton Foundation with its top ratings from Charity Navigator and Charity Watch [AP] but the hard facts remain that Mr. Trump has been and may continue to be involved in practices which are illegal at worst and ethically questionable at best.

Representatives Amodei, Hardy, and Heck, Attorney General Laxalt, and Governor Sandoval should be asked directly how they can continue to support a presidential candidate who has demonstrated a willingness to break the rules of casino operations? To engage in housing discrimination? To refuse payment to employees and contractors (including his own campaign staff)? To engage in unlawful immigration practices?

The answers should be enlightening?

*Cresent Hardy has since decided he will do everything he can to get Mr. Trump elected. [LV Sun]

Comments Off on Scams and Scandals: Is Nothing Enough to Put Nevada Republicans Off Trump?

Filed under Amodei, Heck, Nevada politics, Politics

Train Wrecks and Exercises in Futility: Laxalt Joins Texas Immigration Suit

Futility 2 It’s nothing unexpected, Nevada Attorney General Adam “Train Wreck” Laxalt has inserted Nevada into the Texas lawsuit (pdf) concerning executive actions on immigration.  This is one Tea Party invitation anyone could have predicted Laxalt would accept.  The lawsuit is also the kind of political theater the Tea Party/GOP enjoys: All Puff, Fluff, Sound, Fury based on the premise that an objection to an executive action on ideological grounds is always “constitutional.” So, what exactly has “Train Wreck” gotten us into?

#1. An argument over immigration policy with only an extremely thin veneer of constitutional controversy.   The second point made in the case is that: “This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.”  Yes, and I am a giraffe…because I say I am.  Because the remaining points in the suit are all about Immigration, about the proposed DREAM Act, about DACA, about the Nava-Martinez Case, about the DHS directive.   It’s easy to make a pronouncement disclaiming any anti-immigrant intent; it’s far more difficult to assert this claim when the objections are predicated exclusively on actions involving immigration policy.

It is also all the more difficult to explain away the anti-immigrant content of the litigation when the lead plaintiff (the state of Texas) has said the case is about immigration policy. [Newmax] One of the contentions is that the implementation of the Administration’s immigration policy creates an economic harm for the state.  If it’s not about immigration policy then what happens to the economic harm element?  It’s about immigration.  And, we can figure this out from the next clue – where the case is being filed.

Interestingly enough, the case was handed to Judge Andrew Hanen, a Bush appointee, who is already on record opposing the Obama Administration’s immigration policy. [AmThink] How convenient?  It might have been easier (and more literally convenient) had the case been sent to a court in Dallas? Austin? But, for obviously political reasons the case is sent to Judge Hanen’s realm in beautiful downtown Brownsville.

#2An argument about immigration policy in which the Office of Legal Counsel (Department of Justice) has already established guidelines for executive action.  The language in the lawsuit implies that the President didn’t follow the directions of the Office of Legal Counsel in a “unilateral creation of the DACA program.”  It might have been helpful if someone had perhaps read through the OLC’s directive in full?   There is this segment which we should take into consideration:

“Nonetheless, the nature of the Take Care duty does point to at least four general (and closely related) principles governing the permissible scope of enforcement discretion that we believe are particularly relevant here. First, enforcement decisions should reflect “factors which are peculiarly within [the enforcing agency’s] expertise.” Chaney, 470 U.S. at 831. Those factors may include considerations related to agency resources, such as “whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action,” or “whether agency resources are best spent on this violation or another.” Id. Other relevant considerations may include “the proper ordering of [the agency’s] priorities,” id. at 832, and the agency’s assessment of “whether the particular enforcement action [at issue] best fits the agency’s overall policies,” id. at 831.”

In short, if the agency’s resources require prioritization of actions then the agency/executive have the authority to create priorities. In this case the priorities are to deport undesirable individuals such as those who have committed crimes, etc., and to place youngsters with no criminal history at the bottom of the ‘to do list.’  And, did the Department of Homeland Security do what is permissible under the law?

“In our view, DHS’s proposed prioritization policy falls within the scope of its lawful discretion to enforce the immigration laws. To begin with, the policy is based on a factor clearly “within [DHS’s] expertise.” Chaney, 470 U.S. at 831. Faced with sharply limited resources, DHS necessarily must make choices about which removals to pursue and which removals to defer. DHS’s organic statute itself recognizes this inevitable fact.”

The argument over authority could now be reversed such that we could ask if the Texans and their Tea Party allies may interfere in the lawful prioritization of executive department implementations of statutes?  In one of the sillier arguments presented the Texans and Tea Partiers offered the following:

“Although OLC had cautioned the President that it was “critical” to DACA’s legality that the Administration evaluate every application on a case-by case basis, the President and DHS ignored that advice. According to the latest figures available, the Administration granted deferred action to 99.5-99.8% of DACA applicants.”

Merely because a policy might apply to 99.5% of the applicants doesn’t mean that all such applications will be automatic.  In fact, the Obama Administration policy doesn’t provide automatic categorization, as we can see from the OLC analysis:

And, significantly, the proposed policy does not identify any category of removable aliens whose removal may not be pursued under any circumstances. Although the proposed policy limits the discretion of immigration officials to expend resources to remove non-priority aliens, it does not eliminate that discretion entirely. It directs immigration officials to use their resources to remove aliens in a manner “commensurate with the level of prioritization identified,” but (as noted above) it does not “prohibit or discourage the apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens unlawfully in the United States who are not identified as priorities.” Johnson Prioritization Memorandum at 5. Instead, it authorizes the removal of even non-priority aliens if, in the judgment of an ICE Field Office Director, “removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest,” a standard the policy leaves open-ended. Id. Accordingly, the policy provides for case-by-case determinations about whether an individual alien’s circumstances warrant the expenditure of removal resources, employing a broad standard that leaves ample room for the exercise of individualized discretion by responsible officials.”  (emphasis added)

We might boil this down to some essentials.  First, the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to prioritize its activities based on the resources at its command. Secondly, the Obama immigration policy does NOT create any categories of ‘removable aliens’ who cannot be removed. And, third, there is, in fact, provision for a case by case determination of an alien’s circumstances and responsible officials may exercise their discretion.

That the Texans and Tea Partier Allies may wish to jump up and down crying “Amnesty!” doesn’t mean that the actual Office of Legal Counsel guidelines, and the actual Obama Administration’s policy directives, and the actual Department of Homeland Security plans are anything close to a rational definition of ‘amnesty.’

#3. A lawsuit including the now-defunct “child crisis at the border.”  The Nava-Martinez section and the ‘defendants cause a humanitarian crisis’ portion are a rehash of the right wing talking points during the reactionary assault on a very well intentioned law enacted in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. [Vox]

#4. A lawsuit which strings together some quotations from the President about the necessity of enacting comprehensive immigration reform statutes.  Amen to that, but neither the President’s actions in terms of the DACA directives nor the Trafficking Victims Protection Act preclude the enactment, or non-enactment for that matter, of comprehensive immigration acts.  Nor can it be established that since Congress didn’t do anything about immigration policy reform that the President can’t do anything either.

#5. A lawsuit which is blatantly anti-immigrant per seThe DHS directive will increase the number of undocumented persons in plaintiff states.  If we remove the deportation threat the U.S. will seem more attractive to undocumented persons. It will trigger a new wave…” And this is terrible because…?  Any sovereign state should have control of its borders, but that doesn’t mean the Great Wall of China (a ‘wall’ which also served as a channel for international  trade as well as defense).   Additionally, the states will have to spend money on childrens’ health care and indigent health services… and when did we become so callous that taking care of children, even other people’s children, is to be categorized as an unconscionable expense?

#6. A political suit which could easily put the Republican Party in Nevada at peril in the next round of elections.  “Attorney General Adam Laxalt announced today that Nevada will join a multistate coalition suing President Barack Obama’s contentious deportation deferral program, his first major publicized legal action and one he’s carrying out without the backing of Gov. Brian Sandoval.” [LVSun

The suit may very well make it through Judge Hanen’s court, but for the most part this will probably be yet another exercise in futility by the reactionary Right, for the reactionary Right, and from the reactionary Right. This matters little to the ideologues of the Right.  We’re looking at what highlights the differences between Establishment and Reactionary Republicans, and  we may also be looking at what a Train Wreck the Nevada GOP could become?

Comments Off on Train Wrecks and Exercises in Futility: Laxalt Joins Texas Immigration Suit

Filed under Immigration

Defending the Indefensible

Nothing like the little troopers of Leonidas I intrepidly defending their self described Thermopylae against the encroachment of the 21st Century, and marriage equality! Nevada Secretary of State candidate Adam Laxalt announcing to anyone listening, “Today, Nevada’s Constitution still stands strong,” he said. “The preference of our voters is the law of the state and nothing the attorney general did changes that.” [LVSun]

No, nothing changes the unfortunate choice made by Nevada voters on Question 2, a citizen initiated referendum to alter the state Constitution in 2000, and affirming that vote in 2002.  However, the buyer’s remorse is evident in the polling done since the adoption of the amendment.  In 2009 a Las Vegas Sun poll found 38% favoring same-sex unions, and by October 2013 those favoring 57% now approve of removing the amendment to the Nevada Constitution. [ranNV pdf]

But, no, nothing is to prevent the Governor and the Nevada Attorney General from continuing the case in question.  Before they do so it would be nice to have some assurance that all the effort, overtime, and taxpayer expense has the possibility of success.   The appeal in Sevcik v. Sandoval (pdf) maintains (1) the inequality in marriage creates ‘harms’ the domestic partnership law doesn’t mend, (2) the marriage ban creates fundamental violations of the rights of the partners, and (3) the marriage ban violates the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment.   Sandoval/Masto responded that the decision in Baker v. Nelson is still controlling and the legal action is outside the jurisdiction of the court.  [Sandoval/Masto pdf]

The problem here is that the Baker v. Nelson decision was rendered in October 1972.  Times have indeed changed, and the judiciary along with it. Conservatives have been hanging their hats on Baker v. Nelson, but the nails have come out of the wall for this hat-rack.

When the Obama Administration dropped its advocacy of DOMA, the Republicans in the House of Representatives stepped in, with the Baker v. Nelson Defense.   The Circuit Court of Appeals gave the argument short shrift. [SCOTUS]  The decision in U.S. v. Windsor took the cases into new territory:

“By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage.” [SCOTUS Kennedy]

And then the winds swept over the plains in Oklahoma:

“In ruling against the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, the judge declared that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of legal equality.  He ruled that the Supreme Court’s ruling last Term in United States v. Windsor actually provided some support both for the challenging couple and for state officials defending the state ban.

“The Windsor decision, the judge said, supports a plea for marriage equality because much of the reasoning of the Court majority about the purpose behind DOMA could also be applied to state bans on same-sex marriage.  It supports the state, the judge added, because of the lengthy commentary in the opinion about states’ primary power to define marriage.” [SCOTUS]

Therefore, in essence what candidate Laxalt is saying is that he would continue pressing a case in which that formerly  controlling precedent has had the props knocked from under it, and would continue to appeal a decision already on tenuous grounds in Utah and Oklahoma.  Some exercises in futility may have some intrinsic merit, but this certainly doesn’t seem like one of them.  There’s another aphorism which might be more appropriate: Quit while you’re still ahead.

Comments Off on Defending the Indefensible

Filed under Nevada news, Nevada politics, Politics