Nevada's Supreme Court has ruled against Wynn Las Vegas dealers Joseph Cesarz and Daniel Baldonado. The Supremes are pretty much writing finis to the duo's courageous quest to overturn an iniquitous tip-confiscation scheme. (If you're unsympathetic to Cesarz and Baldonado, ask yourself how you'd feel about being asked to forfeit 15%-20% of your paycheck.)

Technically, the ruling kicks the ball back into the court of the Nevada Labor Commissioner. But aggrieved dealers tried that avenue already, only to have a deaf ear turned to their plight. (Resulting in some ugly scenes.) Why? Because Wynn didn't "keep" the money, he wasn't in violation of a Nevada law that forbids management from participating in tip pools. Of course, if I'm the CEO of Wynn Resorts and can save myself a bundle, not by switching my car insurance to Geico but by taking tip money from dealers and using it to raise pit bosses' pay without paying an extra cent in salaries, a few of you might conclude that I'm deriving a "direct benefit" from my tip-grabbing stratagem. (The co-author of the bill in question, former state Sen. Donald Mello, certainly does.)

At least the Supremes had the decency to spike a shameful claim for legal costs made by Wynn Resorts. I sorta doubt that Steve Wynn is having trouble scraping together the money to pay Gregory Kamer & Co. Going after Cesarz and Baldonado like that just makes him look petty, vindictive and irascible, the Al Davis of casino owners. Surely Wynn doesn't crave that particular reputation.

Of course, if he truly said and believes that he's "the most powerful man in Nevada," this latest turn of events could really go to his head. Who's going to stand against him now, especially after Assemblyman Bob Beers' support for the dealers got him ousted at the ballot box? Beers' likely replacement in Carson City is a fetchingly pretty Harrah's bean counter, a Stepford candidate wheeled into the district by some local GOP soreheads, whose anti-Beers vendetta enjoyed the apparent collusion of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. He's unlikely to get any uppity Beers-like ideas.

Beers had deviated from party orthodoxy, in addition to offending the Great & Powerful Oz, so he had to go. His crime was to be a decent human being, for which there seems to be scant call these days.

Speaking of the R-J (if we absolutely must), its publisher was engaging in some douchebaggery today, crowing about the fact that Jon Ralston was identified as a "former Review-Journal reporter," calling it "delicious karma."

Oh, it's karma in the sense that you kissed off the area's preeminent political pundit, who now works for the competition and has his own TV show, while you've got ... a blog, just like me and millions of other people. I'm sure Ralston is weeping bitter, salty tears over the lesson you taught him.

But seriously, when the go-to guy for political commentary in Nevada is somebody you ran off the reservation, who looks worse: Sherman Frederick or Jon Ralston? Enjoy that "karma" while Ralston enjoys his face time on Fox News. Yup, you sure showed him.