Sir Charles Barkley says he'll pay the Wynn the $400,000 he owes, but hasn't contacted the Clark Co. D.A. about the debt yet. (Las Vegas Sun)The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on gay marriage and you can read the opinion here. (WaPo) Why should that matter in NV? Well, we carbon copy every other California legal doctrine, why would this be any different? Because unlike in California, the ban on gay marriage in Nevada is by Constitutional amendment (not statute). As a result, for gay marriage to be legal, another constitutional amendment would need to be added to eliminate the current ban. (Review-Journal)
Conducting an illegal closed-door meeting when you're a government entity can result in having any decisions made there erased as a matter of Nevada law, but the party harmed by the closed door can't sue for damages. (Review-Journal)
We here at WWL would like to welcome former Congressional candidate and former/current D.A. Robert Daskas back to the job of prosecuting Major Violators in Clark Co. (Review-Journal)
The former UMC Chief facing corruption charges wants the Clark Co. D.A.'s office removed from the case due to conflict of interest (Review-Journal)
A ruling from the NSC or any federal court that NV’s constitutional amendment was in violation of the 13th or 14th Amendments to the US Constitution would make it unenforceable as well.
ReplyDeleteI would say that, while true, such a scenario is highly unlikely ... this isn't California.
ReplyDeleteTo 4:27pm Anonymous posting -
ReplyDeleteThere are a bunch of states that enacted DOMA equivalent legislation and most court challenges have fallen in favor of the state's ban, especially in the more conservative states (clearly...)
Those that want DOMA legislation removed need to start challenging the various states' constitutional amendments in Federal court.
They should also take a look at challenging DOMA itself since it's a codified federal statute now and supports the various states' ability to ban and explicitly not recognize same sex marriages.
to 4:27
ReplyDeleteSuch an approach to challenging the Defense of Marriage Act sounds well-thought out theoretically until you recognize that most of the Federal judiciary is socially conservative and would toss out any challenge to DOMA since gays are not a protected class in the federal system.