You know that one bitchy girl at work who’s always telling you how to do your job, like you totally don’t already know how to do your job? Well, imagine if everybody at work was like that! And then imagine they totally gabbed to the entire world about how you suck at your job! Picturing that? OK, you’re imaging what it’s like to be Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta.

Poor Saitta had a bad year. It was revealed by the Review-Journal that she’d lied on her resume, claiming to be a political science professor at UNLV when she was really just a part-time instructor. As a result, she ended up on R-J columnist Jane Ann Morrison’s shit list, not just once, not just twice, but three times!

But now, Saitta’s colleagues on the state’s high court are nailing her for trying to keep a court case involving a would-be judge secret. It seems she erred when she totally sealed a case involving former Family Court Judge Robert Lueck, who was running once again for the Family Court bench.

The shocking revelation Saitta didn’t want the public to see in a negative campaign commercial? Lueck apparently didn’t pay his child-support! And he was running for an office where he would order (and enforce orders) for people to pay child support! Oh, sweet irony!

Saitta, who not only sealed the case, but also issued a gag order preventing people from talking about it, was guilty of a "manifest abuse of discretion," according to the unanimous Supreme Court ruling. That’s lawyer talk for "girl, you sure you went to law school?" Oh, and although the law requires a written request to seal a case, and certain findings to be made, Saitta instead followed the Nike motto, and just did it.

Final irony: In the end, Lueck lost his race.

Now, we can all agree it’s wrong to seal cases willy-nilly. (The Review-Journal, by the way, printed an excellent series this year about that practice and how it’s been abused.) We can also agree that sealing a case for political reasons and putting a gag order on people so they can’t use the information in a political campaign is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. And we can further agree that a judge — of all people — should understand what that means.

You know, Saitta is actually lucky that being publicly upbraided by her colleagues and embarrassed before her constituents is probably going to be the worst thing that happens to her in this incident. Or will it? After all, there’s no sealing this decision, and no gag order to prevent a future opponent from suggesting that Saitta might not be the best person to be sitting on Nevada’s highest court.

Something tells us we will be seeing this material again.