Discipline Commission responds to Judge Halverson
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline filed its Answer to Judge Halverson’s Emergency Petition for a Writ of Prohibition, or in the Alternative a Writ of Mandamus on Tuesday.
The Answer is a curious mix of folksy discussion and defensive posturing. In general, the lead in to the argument is a bit strident, and even sneering. I speak, of course, as a brief writer occasionally guilty of both stridency and sneers, and have no doubt that I shall, in a brief I will write later today, refer to my opponent’s “gossamer claims,” since I quite liked that phrase.
On purely rhetorical grounds, I deplore the use of the series of self-righteous questions, appearing page 7. The indignation displayed therein is not unreasonable, of course, but such questions can all too easily put a reader on the defensive – especially questions that refer to the Court’s “admonitions” as “so general as to be impossible to comply with.” That just might be something less than persuasive to the authors of those admonitions.
Ultimately, the Answer makes a cogent point about the risk of employment of dismissal of an action as punishment for an alleged lack of alacrity in bringing formal charges. And certainly there can’t be any doubt that Commission has a lot on its plate, given the Del Vecchio situation. See posts about that discipline complaint here and here.
We can only wonder what else these poor folks have to investigate.
