Jon Ralston is impressed at the clarity and brevity displayed by lawyer-politicians

Friday, Sept. 22, 2006 | 7:32 a.m.

With a bunch of lawyers invited to pontificate at a forum, you don't expect brevity. With a gaggle of politicians asked to talk about themselves at an event, you don't expect clarity. So imagine my surprise Thursday when a gathering of lawyer-politicians produced both conciseness and transparency.

I credit moderator John Curtas, a local lawyer who moved it along, and timekeeper Eric Mann, the Clark County bar's executive director, whose bell pealed and was heeded at this candidates forum:

Taking the initiative: As Supreme Court Justice Nancy Becker sat a few feet away, her opponent, District Judge Nancy Saitta, unloaded on the recent decisions by the court, calling them "not well reasoned" and "not supported by law or the Constitution."

Saitta mentioned the infamous Guinn vs. Legislature case from 2003, when the court creatively argued that the Constitution's two-thirds tax increase requirement wasn't substantive enough for the Gang of 63 to obey. And then she ticked off the recent decisions to knock off Tax and Spending Control and edit the eminent domain initiative. "It's time for someone to uphold the law," she declared.

I asked her after the discussion whether she was saying TASC should have been kept on the ballot. She answered briefly again: "Yes."

But she said the greater issue was the court's consistency. "Either they both stay or they both go," she said. "If you can rewrite one, you can rewrite the other."

Saitta also mentioned that the court should have listened to the "will of the people" because tens of thousands of voters signed the TASC petition. "They should have found every way to keep it on," she added.

Those are strong words - and words that will appeal to those people who vote in elections. But Saitta, who said she decided to run because of some of the court's decisions, will have to defend herself against inevitable charges that she has been recruited by some successful trial lawyers thwarted by Becker and the court.

This race is destined to take as ugly a turn as every other contested high court race has during the last couple of decades.

Which way is more corrupt? Becker had an interesting take on judges raising money as she essentially came out against Washoe County Judge Brent Adams' idea to put jurists at arm's length from the actual fundraising. Becker, who didn't mention the Adams plan, indicated that committees responsible for fundraising for judges might make the situation worse.

"If you leave it to a committee, you don't know what they are promising or what threats are being made," Becker said. I am sure she did not mean that the judges should be promising or threatening themselves. What she meant was, how can a judge know what is being said on his or her behalf?

And, Becker added, "The committee operates out of public view." True enough. But the problem would be solved if they didn't raise money at all because they were appointed, which Saitta, again pandering to those people who vote , indicated she was against, as did others.

(Actually, I have found that the problem with judges - and especially judicial candidates - is that they don't seem to understand that their fealty should not be to the "will of the people" but to the law, no matter what popular sentiment might be.)

Justice Michael Douglas, getting to the heart of the matter when asked whether judges should campaign on issues such as the death penalty, abortion and same-sex marriage, said, "We are getting politicians as judges, not judges."

Anyone want to argue the other side?

And speaking of brevity: Douglas was blunt and wry when asked for his most significant accomplishments. He mentioned his time as a civil counselor to the Clark County Commission and said he was proud of "keeping county commissioners out of trouble," which in the current climate drew some chuckles. And then he added that he also was proud of "having lived through another initiative season."

So far, that is.