Judicial accountability in Nevada - beating the dead horse

Same as in Pennsylvania in Kids for Cash scandal, same as in New York, in the state of Nevada judicial disciplinary authorities take their heads out of the secret place where those heads are, and do their jobs only when a judge is convicted of a federal crime.

Judge Stephen Jones resigned and was convicted of federal investment fraud - for a scheme defrauding 50 investors and using his name as a judge in an assurance that their investment is safe.

That is the same judge who had "a romantic relationship" with a female prosecutor while she handled cases in front of the judge.

For the prosecutor, the act of handling cases in front of the judge while having an affair with him was not bad enough, but the exposure was, so that she committed a suicide.

Once again, the judge had to be:

1) convicted of a federal federal;
2) resign from the bench, but not before he reportedly collected his $200,000 salary for months despite being suspended for misconduct; and
3)  disbarred

before the judicial disciplinary authorities also decided to NOW "take him off the bench" - a purely symbolic gesture, because to get back to that bench he now has to get a presidential pardon and restore a law license, both events extremely unlikely.

Shouldn't the order of events be different?

Shouldn't Judge Jones be:

1) first taken off the bench;
2) then disbarred; and
3) then convicted of a federal crime?


After all, the burden of proof to take off the bench and disbar is lower than to convict of a crime - and there was plenty of evidence to do that.

So much for judicial accountability.

Holding out and not disciplining the judge until the discipline is ridiculously redundant.