Aaron Ford’s Office Creates a Constitutional Crisis
Picture this: You’re a judge doing your job, and suddenly you’re facing a complaint about how you handled a case. You’d expect the state that hired you to have your back, right? Well, that’s exactly what’s not happening under Attorney General Aaron Ford’s watch in Nevada.
Judge Kimberly Wanker from Nye County just filed a petition with the Nevada Supreme Court. She wants to know if Ford’s office has to represent judges when they face discipline hearings. The answer should be obvious based on state law, but Ford’s team is creating a real mess that cuts right to the heart of how our government works.
Why Aaron Ford’s Stance Should Worry Every Conservative
This isn’t just some legal squabble between lawyers. It’s about an attorney general who seems to think he can decide which laws his office will follow. When Ford’s office prosecutes a judge but then refuses to defend that same judge as required by law, we’ve got a serious problem with government accountability.
Think about it this way: If you work for a company and someone sues you for doing your job, wouldn’t you expect your employer to provide legal help? That’s what Nevada law clearly says should happen with judges. But Ford’s office is saying “not our problem” – even though they’re the ones who brought the complaint in the first place.
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline told Wanker in June that they had enough evidence to make her respond to a complaint filed by First Assistant Attorney General Craig Newby, who works directly under Ford. When she asked for a lawyer from the state as the law requires, Ford’s office said no.
Ford’s Office Ignores Clear Legal Requirements
Nevada law is crystal clear about this. It says the attorney general must defend any “local judicial officer” in civil actions. Wanker argues that discipline hearings count as civil actions, and legal experts agree that this interpretation makes sense. But Ford’s office is playing word games to avoid their legal duty.
This creates a ridiculous situation where Ford’s team gets to be both prosecutor and the office that’s supposed to provide defense. It’s like having the same boss control both the district attorney and the public defender. Any conservative who believes in fair play should be outraged.
A Pattern of Selective Law Enforcement
For those who believe in limited government and constitutional principles, Ford’s handling of this case fits a troubling pattern. This is the same attorney general who has picked high-profile fights with conservative causes while seemingly ignoring his basic legal duties.
Ford’s office was quick to join lawsuits against the Trump administration, but now claims they can’t follow a straightforward state law about defending judges. They found time and resources to sue major corporations over the opioid crisis, but somehow can’t provide legal representation that Nevada law clearly requires.
The separation of powers isn’t just a nice idea from civics class. It’s what keeps any one part of government from getting too powerful. When Ford’s office can go after judges without providing them proper legal defense as required by law, we’re seeing exactly the kind of government overreach conservatives have warned about for years.
Ford’s Office Dodges Accountability
This also raises serious questions about how Ford spends taxpayer money. We fund his office to represent the state’s interests and follow Nevada law. Shouldn’t that include defending the judges we elect and appoint when the law clearly says he must?
Instead of explaining why he thinks he can ignore state law, Ford’s office simply “declined to comment, citing pending litigation.” That’s convenient – hide behind legal procedure when caught not following the law.
What Critics and Defenders Are Saying
Some legal experts argue that discipline hearings are different from regular civil cases, giving Ford some cover for his position. They say judges should hire their own lawyers for these proceedings.
But other legal scholars point out that the law doesn’t make these fine distinctions. When the statute says “any civil action,” it means any civil action. Ford doesn’t get to rewrite the law from his office.
Conservative legal groups are watching this case closely, seeing it as another example of selective law enforcement by progressive attorneys general who put politics above their legal duties.
What Could Happen Next
The Nevada Supreme Court will decide this question, and its answer will determine whether Ford can continue ignoring inconvenient laws. If they side with Wanker, it could force Ford’s office to actually follow the statutes they’re supposed to enforce.
If the court lets Ford off the hook, it sets a dangerous precedent. Other attorneys general might decide they can pick and choose which laws apply to them too.
This case could influence other states where progressive attorneys general are testing the limits of their authority. Legal experts nationwide are watching to see if Nevada will hold Ford accountable.
What You Can Do About Ford’s Power Grab
If you care about constitutional government and the rule of law, this case should alarm you. Contact your state legislators and ask them to investigate why Ford thinks he can ignore state law. Make sure they understand that selective law enforcement isn’t acceptable from any government official.
Support transparency in government. Ford’s office is hiding behind confidentiality rules, but taxpayers deserve to know why their attorney general won’t follow the law. Demand accountability from elected officials who think rules don’t apply to them.
Stay informed about Aaron Ford’s record and remember this case when he’s up for reelection. Attorneys general who pick and choose which laws to follow don’t deserve to keep their jobs.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
