Anti Videogame Judge Seeks Re-election In Missouri

nevarre writes, "US District Judge Stephen Limbaugh (yes, he IS related to Rush) along with other local judges will be up for retention vote status this November 7th on the Missouri state ballot. You may remember him from his ruling in 2002 that videogames are not a conveyance for ideas and are therefore not protected as 'free speech' even though he felt that stopping fax spam would violate 'commercial speech' protections under the First Amendment."

Comments

Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[(trb001)]

US District Judge Stephen Limbaugh (yes, he IS related to Rush)

This tidbit of information serves no purpose other than to link the key person in the story to someone that the majority of the readership already despises. Just tell us what to think next time instead of using (not so) subtle hints.

--trb

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[iainl]

I kind of think the submittor was attempting to do that with the info about videgames and spam...

But it's a valid answer to a question many of us seeing that surname will have otherwise asked.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. This corruption by blood thought process is just nonsense.

A brother of a mass murderer is not a criminal nor is the brother of the Pope a saint. Each person has to be judged individually, not by family. It is time that some slashdot submitters crawl out of the 15th century.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[El Torico]

Actually, it just made me wonder if there is a genetic predisposition towards being a hypocritical asshat.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[hc5duke]

This tidbit of information serves no purpose other than to link the key person in the story to someone that the majority of the readership already despises.

While that may be true, if that tidbit of information wasn't there, I would be wondering if they were related, and he saved me a wikipedia search (they're cousins). Come to think of it, I just searched it anyway... damn it.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[b0s0z0ku]

This tidbit of information serves no purpose other than to link the key person in the story to someone that the majority of the readership already despises. Just tell us what to think next time instead of using (not so) subtle hints.

If the judge had had the same surname as Mother Theresa and the article said that they were related, would you have been offended too? This is just stating an answer to a question that's guaranteed to be asked?

-b.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[genrader]

It's almost as if the person just wants us to dislike the judge because people dislike Rush. Hillary Clinton is just as anti video game.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[squiggleslash]

And every time Hillary opens her big fat mouth to criticise video games, it gets reported on Slashdot too. What's your point?

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[elrous0]

As a Democrat, I just really hope that bitch doesn't get the nomination in 2008. It could well be what finally drives me (permanently) to a third party. She's just the kind of political opportunist that I despise (all the worse since she's in MY party). The videogame issue is just another example of her overall propensity for political pandering--a symptom of the disease.

In fact, the whole videogame issue has become a political opportunist's field day. Since the videogame industry is relatively weak (they JUST got a lobbyist) and most die-hard gamers are relatively young (and, hence, politically weak), it's easy enough for politicians to villainize them and "take them on" without any political downside.

-Eric

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[dmatos]

Nature, or nurture? I'll assume that they were raised by members of the same family, and often families will have similar political leanings due to extended periods of living together.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[CheshireCatCO]

Dude, most of the POPES haven't been saints, either literally or figuratively. You picked a bad example.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[frank_adrian314159]

As a Democrat, I just really hope that bitch doesn't get the nomination in 2008.

I also hope that she doesn't get the nod - she has enough negative baggage with so many people that we would probably lose in 2008. Plus there's still that whole "Are the American people ready to accept a female president?" thing. But she's raised so much money it's likely that she'll be able to get the nomination. Even if we don't get her specifically, because the main reins of the party's power are held in the hands of the DLC, we're likely to get another DINO candidate as a replacement.

And it's not just video games - it's the war, it's the sucking up to big business, it's the free trade uber alles viewpoint. All of these things make most of the "mainstream" Democratic candidates fairly uninteresting to me. Yes, I'll vote for them because the alternative is awful, but I already vote for Greens in "sure thing" elections and send money to actual progressive candidates. And, BTW, the latter is really needed, as the DLC is holding onto power by preferably funding their candidates - the head of the DLC has stated that he'd be happy with a one seat majority as long as the DLC is able to keep control of the party.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus there's still that whole "Are the American people ready to accept a female president?" thing.

Hey, look on the bright side -- at least she's white, rich, heterosexual, and Christian.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[(trb001)]

It depends. If the MT reference was included so as to give the story some background, or explain why the main actor in the story was doing something (charity or church related, etc), I'd say it's answering one of the important questions in journalism. This doesn't do that. Rush, to my knowledge, is just an asshat that happens to be related to the judge, and the submitter was trying to imply that the judge is an asshat by relation. That's like saying "...the judge (who's brother is a strung out coke fiend that beats his wife and fathers illegitimate children) ruled today...". It answers no questions that the story is trying to cover, it only attempts to form an association in the reader's head.

--trb

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[drinkypoo]

And amusingly (if you're sick and twisted like me) it seems that all of the most wicked things have been done by Popes whose pope name (it's like a secret club, isn't it?) is "Innocent". Which of course is what our current evil pope (most conservative in a long-ass time) is called...

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[Lehk228]

it also helps head off a major threadjack where someonenotices the name and everyone argues back and forth over whether or not they are related

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[twistedsymphony]

Libertarians, Greens, and Pirates welcome you.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[twistedsymphony]

That's what I thought too but a whole lot of good it did since it's been thread-jacked into a discussion as to the submitters intent when including that information.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assertions are logically indefensible. The submitter might have intended to make an ad hominem attack, but the submitter might also have merely been anticipating a likely question and answering it before anyone got a chance to ask it. Hell, the submitter might have gone into shock and fallen on the keyboard, the keys his head bounced off of randomly adding that bit of text and submitting the article (although, obviously, Occam's Razor suggest this is not a valid conclusion).

Regardless of the intent, you do not know the intent and by going off on this tangent, you betray much more your own inability to stick to the point based on only the facts than the submitter's inability to do as much.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[orgelspieler]

I don't think so. I am glad the submitter gave us that parenthetical identifier because it immediately answered a question I had. I am more likely to think that Stephen Limbaugh is a knee-jerk-conservative, big-business-bitch based on his own judgements, rather than his brother's opinions. My brother and I have very different political views, and several people with siblings would say the same thing. Few people smart enough to read Slashdot would be dumb enough to allow an informative parenthetical to dictate their opinions.

I guess he's one of those damned activist judges his brother rails against all the time.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[WilliamSChips]

I thought his name was "Benedict". Which means sweet-talker.

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[Alsee]

DLC

I wasn't particularly familiar with the DLC, so I went and read the Wikipadia on Wikipadia on DLC and found it puzzling and somewhat discomforting, especially in the wondering about the accuracy of the criticsm section. So then I went to the official website and based on a variety of areas on there the final paragraph of the Wikipedia section of criticism of the DLC appears to be dead on, that the DCL appears to be a corpratism&wight-wing attempt to infest and influence the Democratic party. And then horror of horrors, I came across the Technology & Innovation: Content/Intellectual Property page with this position paper.

Holy fucking batshit, Batman!

The DLC position paper is to:
Exempt media companies from anti-trust law.
Strip the power and control of Fair Use from the courts.
And actually goes so far as to label NORMAL computers as "piracy-enabled" and ...get this... to advocate legislatively mandated special DRM-computers upon us.

Holy fucking batshit, Batman! DL-fucking-C fucking batshit fuckwads!

The DCL should have a god-damn AA at the end. RIAA, MPAA, DLCAA, we all love the fucking-xxAA. It was bad enough when they just bought off the politicians. Now they're looking to literally run the political parties from the inside.

-

Re:Just tell us what to think and be done with it

[freakmn]

You there! Stop with your usage of facts and logic! That's not allowed here. Only hearsay and fallacies are acceptable in this forum.

campaigns

[arun_s]

We don't really need blatant campaigning on /. do we? A lot of readers here aren't American, and news from 2002 doesn't seem to be necessary either.
Ok, maybe he's one of the bad guys, but I still don't see any newsworthiness in this.

Re:campaigns

[Anonymous Coward]

The next time you see "election" and "Missouri" in the title you can skip over the article. Me, it was useful information and I'll be voting him out.

fax-spam violates what?

[tomstdenis]

I have a right to not receive fax-spam. It's my fax machine and my paper/ink, in short my property.

The judge notes that there is no evidence that it's a problem ... that's because fax-spam has been stopped [for the most part] by the law designed to do just that. That's like saying we should make treason ok since it so rarely happens.

What next? telemarketers calling cell phones? Oh christ I just gave him an idea...

Tom

Re:fax-spam violates what?

[Tweekster]

Actually fax spam is a problem if you have a business. Although I am positive the law helped cut down a lot of it, it still is rather annoying.

I think without the law, fax would be a dead technology simply because it would be unusable.

This judge is an idiot and has obviously been out of the private sector for far too long. I think all elected officials should be required to go work every so many terms, get them back in the loop of what people want, get them back into reality.

Re:fax-spam violates what?

[tomstdenis]

Again this is a problem which has a solution. Judges can be impeached and some classes of judges are elected aren't they?

If people voted [and spent their money] with open eyes we'd have a bit more common sense in the world. Let's see how Emperor Tom would do things

1. Drugs: Make them locally. Enforce drug tests in public schools, expel violators, the problem will weed itself out in a generation or two

2. Poverty: Make businesses capitalistic again.

3. Gay Marriages: Let the church decide, tell the homophobes and flower-power kids to STFU

4. War: Enact the prime directive, stop selling weapons abroad.

5. Science: Protect life, dissolve any hints of "spirituality"

6. Schools: Put money here

7. Military: Take money from here

8. Foreign Policy: let people sort their own problems out. Have dinner with leaders at white house.

9. Media: Enact time restrictions on programming nature (e.g. violence, cussing, etc) and allow anything after [say] 10PM

10. Business: Go all medevil on anti-trust violators

etc, etc, etc.

Sometimes the solution is blindingly obvious, just not very popular.

Tom

Re:fax-spam violates what?

[SydShamino]

I think all elected officials should be required to go work every so many terms, get them back in the loop of what people want, get them back into reality.

And what of the people in jobs that cannot be so easily dropped and picked back up? Do you think a software engineer who has spent 10 years as a politician has any chance of getting another programming job, 10 years rusty? Or do you just naturally expect all politicans would go to a comfy PR or executive position at a major company, non-profit, think-tank, or lobbying firm? Because frankly that's the only job available for anyone in politics who's not a lawyer or independently wealthy.

Frankly, I'd rather have the politicians spend their lives in office than bounce back and forth between representing us and representing a special interest, especially since that special interest will pay them much more than we will.

Re:fax-spam violates what?

[reub2000]

All sound like good ideas. Will you be running for a president in 2008?

Re:fax-spam violates what?

[tomstdenis]

No. For several reasons.

1. I'm full of shit

2. I'm Canadian

3. see #1

4. My way or the highway leads to people shooting me.

5. People don't want solutions, they want to bitch, because if they didn't want to bitch they'd solve their problems.

Tom

Re:fax-spam violates what?

[bluefoxlucid]

1. Drugs: Make them locally. Enforce drug tests in public schools, expel violators, the problem will weed itself out in a generation or two

Unfortunately this system is a destabilizing entropy system (a control system). Remember drugs are habit forming (cigarettes, pot); addictive (heroine); or both. They're also in general detrimental to health--economically, socially, and physically--beyond normal bounds (we're talking even worse than Aspartame). The destabilization is in that people stay under the influence of drugs after they wear off, due to habit or addiction (withdrawal); and that while they're influenced, their decision making process is altered. Look at alcoholics, they become addicted to alcohol due to a brain defect; now picture those problems magnified to some degree, but more importantly guaranteed to affect everyone who uses the substance.

2. Poverty: Make businesses capitalistic again.

Your tenth point opposes this.

3. Gay Marriages: Let the church decide, tell the homophobes and flower-power kids to STFU

The government recognizes marriage for tax reasons, and forces businesses to recognize marriage with certain benefits (i.e. life insurance). The church doesn't control that.

4. War: Enact the prime directive, stop selling weapons abroad.

How about using your brain when selling weapons abroad? North Korea doesn't need atomic bombs; nor did it need the breeder-class reactors that Clinton gave them (not all kinds of nuclear reactors can produce weapons grade nuclear material). However a place like Israel may need some help when there's an invasion force coming in, or if there's a large number of terrorist attacks (yes, they HAVE sent suicide bombers at schools). Washington said never meddle in foreign affairs; he also said poor people are worthless and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

5. Science: Protect life, dissolve any hints of "spirituality"

Concept of fail safe falls here. We still have ethics to deal with, whether or not you want to be spiritual. The ethics of cause and effect may seem mystical to you; but it's factual that every action has consequences, and certain research paths may open up other less desirable options. Besides, placing constraints is a way to advance research; it forces you to seek out other answers and methods instead of taking "the obvious."

Aside, I'm guessing this statement was aimed primarily at embreyonic/adult stem cell research. Remember manipulating embreyonic stem cells requires "chemical concoctions" and all kinds of weird timing, and is difficult in general. It may look like "the magic cure," but it's going to be expensive and unreliable. I have abandoned all spiritual arguments in this particular topic in favor of pointing out A) that you don't need an adult stem cell donor; and B) that embreyonic stem cells don't hold your DNA (so you need anti-rejection drugs that make you sick, like with organ transplants), but adult stem cells do.

6. Schools: Put money here

In Baltimore City we gave them $10,000,000 more per year and didn't find even one extra book or piece of equipment. The exit exams for schools had their passing grade lowered by 10%, and the graduation rate increased from 48% to 52%. They spend about $13,000 per year per student on inferior education; the school I went to has a 99.99% graduation rate on $5,000 per student year, while some of the other top-quality public schools are only getting around $3,000 per student year.

Money does nothing without quality control.

7. Military: Take money from here

We need a military. We're the world's largest super power, we spend a lot of money on other countries, and send a lot of military aid around the world. At the same time people don't seem to like us. If we drop our military, not only do we have problems when people decide they want to attack; but also, we suddenly don't have anyone who

Re:fax-spam violates what?

[Jesterboy]

tl;dr

Plus, I think you have a little too much time on your hands if you're critiquing what is obviously a stream of conciousness from some random dude on the internet.

Re:fax-spam violates what?

[WilliamSChips]

Israel has many of its terrorism problems because of how strongly we support it.
As for military spending, we spend more on the military than all of the next 11 nations down the line combined. We don't need that much power.

worse

[Anonymous Coward]

What next? telemarketers calling cell phones?

Telemarketers sending fax to your cell phones.

You: Hello?
Fax: Beep-anngggghhhhhh-prrrrrnnggggghhh
You: [expletives deleted]

Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[Hamster Lover]

I've never understood why some jurisdictions of the United States elect local judges. What are the prerequisits, such as a law degree, and what is the justification in politicising the judiciary? What are the checks and balances to a judge who simply rules cases strictly on his personal beliefs and not the law?

Anyway, I don't get it and it seems like system that is ripe for abuse.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[rlp]

Some when a judge makes an egregious ruling - then the voters can remove him/her from office. That said, I'd prefer a system whereby local judges were appointed by the state Governor or legislature and subject to a yes / no vote periodically by the voters. A no vote would mean that they were out of office and could not be appointed to another judicial position.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[VanessaE]

That said, I'd prefer a system whereby local judges were appointed by the state Governor or legislature and subject to a yes / no vote periodically by the voters. A no vote would mean that they were out of office and could not be appointed to another judicial position.

Depending on how you define "local", this is the case in the Tampa Bay area here in Florida (and probably elsewhere too). On this year's ballot were nine or ten entries for choosing judges, of which three specifically asked for a Yes/No response on whether the named judge should keep his or her office. I can't say that it does much good though, given that you don't hear very often whether this or that judge has made a bad rulings. For that matter, we don't hear much about the candidates at all, which makes it hard to decide whether or not any given judge should keep their office, let alone choosing between two or more when it's called for.

Whether or not losing office prevents the former judge from running again or being appointed to another position, I couldn't say, having never seen anything regarding a rule like that.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[porcupine8]

As the other poster said, the check on power is that if the judge is making bad decisions, they won't get re-elected.

The problem is with the Supreme Court - appointed by the President with the Senate's okay, for life. Unless they're doing something so egregiously wrong that they face impeachment, the only check on their power is a constitutional amendment. Which takes something like 3/4 of Congress and 2/3 of the states (I may have mixed up those two fractions) to approve.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[booch]

I'd prefer a system whereby local judges were appointed by the state Governor or legislature and subject to a yes / no vote periodically by the voters.

That's pretty much how it works in Missouri. Notably though, many voters do not cast a vote for judges that are on the ballot, as they don't know enough about them. But most judges pass with 90% or more.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[Guppy06]

Alright, first off, remember that the summary got things wrong; no federal judge is up for either an election or a popular confirmation vote. Ever. All federal judges, trial or appellate, are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, and their term is for good behavior (i. e. until they retire, die, or are impeached).

Federal courts can only rule on federal matters, and more specifically only those matters that Congress has empowered them to act (all federal courts other than the Supreme Court of the United States are created by Congress).

As for the state courts, your mileage will vary from state to state. Here in Florida, appellate court judges are appointed by a special executive commission and face approval in the state legislature, however after a certain number of years they are exposed to a popular retention vote, where the voting public decids whether to retain or remove the particular appellate judge. Right now, Florida has three justices from the Florida Supreme Court (among others) facing such a confirmation vote (and what will make this vote interesting is that all three were on the bench for both Bush v. Gore as well as the more recent Terry Schiavo rulings).

As for Florida trial judges, they are decided by election. There are restrictions on who can run, and there are restrictions on how they can run (e. g. they can't say how they intend to rule in future cases brought before them). There may or may not be problems with such a system, however things are mitigated by the fact that the accused in criminal cases has the right to a trial by jury (and juries are also available to civil cases where the parties involved are willing to pay for them). Conviction or acquittal is decided by the jury, not the judge, unless the accused decides to waive their right and have a "bench trial." Any appeals are brought before an unelected appellate court.

While it may not seem like such a great idea to let the public at large decide on trial judges (I myself have reservations), because we have jury trials in the US, it should be remembered that registered voters are, by statue, potential jurors.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's intentional, porcupine8. It allows them to interpret laws with as little conflict of interest as possible. The framers realized that correct interpretation wouldn't always be popular interpretation. By making it a lifetime position, they allow the Court to make decisions like the capital punishment moratorium, or the ending of segregation, without fear of being voted out of office at the end of their term.

Instead, the framers placed other checks on their power. The power of the Court is divided among 9 people; to make a ruling, a case has to go through every other court before them; they can only rule on cases involving federal or constitutional law; to even hear a case at least 4 judges must agree on it; all 9 members must be approved by the legislative body; the members have no power to write or amend legislation; and because of the lifetime nature of the position, a single President is more likely to win the lottery than to select 5 or more members of the Court.

Sure, there's potential for abuse - but we could say that about any government position, couldn't we?

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the appeals courts are for.

Judges do not create laws, they rule on what the laws are. If a law is not clearly defined, they use either a precident, or apply legal principles to the law to define how the existing laws apply in a given case.

Many people forget that the judical branch is equal to the executive and the legislative branch. If there is an issue where the branches are too different, the legisative branch is free to amend the Constitution and propose that to the states.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[Anonymous Coward]

the members have no power to write or amend legislation

Of course, there are those who would argue that recent courts have basically changed this, turning them into lifetime-appointed legislators.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the law were not in question, the issue would have never made it to them, and they would have not had the ability to rule.

The people who call them legislators are either envious or have a poor understanding of the SC, including the current POTUS./p.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[Copid]

Of course, there are those who would argue that recent courts have basically changed this, turning them into lifetime-appointed legislators.

Yes, but those people rarely have data to back up the claim and are frequently just whining because their preferred unconstitutional legislation didn't pass the smell test.

Re:Why do you elect judges in the United States?

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...and because of the lifetime nature of the position, a single President is more likely to win the lottery than to select 5 or more members of the Court.

Perhaps that is why so many senior judges are old? So politicians can be sure of being able to appoint new ones within their term? I'd like to see someone start appointing 22 year old judges. Now that would really stuff the system, when the Supreme court outlived a dozen presidents.

quit being stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It is obvious as all get out that a lot of people would have just wondered, that's all. The submitter just answered the obvious question in advance, and anyone is then free to ponder it or dismiss it, but to think no one would have thought about it and wondered is retarded.

Now go back to your free republic circle jerk with bags over your heads so you can stay in denial over current political reality. I find it quite amusing that the rush to greed bloodline contains so many greedy stupid freaks, maybe there IS something to genetics, eh? Aren't there any more cripples you can go bash today, or maybe you need to stock up on cigars and count your money or something.

America vs. Free Speech

[bhima]

I've been thinking for a while now that Americans have sort of a dysfunctional concept of, and relationship with, Free Speech. Over the years this has led to many problems... it's like we suffer all the annoyances of free speech but don't enjoy all of the benefits.
I don't actually have a proposal but I'm really sick of evilness perpetrated in the name of politics.

Related to Rush?

[Anonymous Coward]

US District Judge Stephen Limbaugh (yes, he IS related to Rush)

He's related to Rockman's dog? Cool! Does he transform into a jetpack or something?

Re:Related to Rush?

[tbannist]

Wrong Rush, Genius! He's obviously the 4th member of Rush from the days before they decided the tambourine wasn't a real instrument. Too bad, he could have made the big time, if only he'd had talent. Eventually, after a string of failed gigs with other bands, he gave up and fell back on his back-up career, ambulance chaser. Eventually connections got him a position as a judge, where he can punish the artistic world that rejected him.

Back to the point here...

[ZWarrior]

Rather than dwell on who he is, or that the OP said who he was related to, let's look at the purpose of the post... to inform readers in MO about a certain judge that is up for re-election. It seems to me that this judge has an inconsistent view on technology, and an inaccurate one at that. I still get the crappy spam faxes for vacation deals, and if we call to get removed it is sent from a different company, same phone number. Obviously it is still a problem, just not as big as it was 10 years ago.

As far as games as idea and subject to free speech? Not sure on that one. I usually count games as entertainment, but I also acknowledge that some can be designed to present a message while you are playing it. Mostly is sounds like someones cop out to avoid getting in trouble for being offensive.

WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

The Judge Limbaugh that is up for voter confirmation is NOT the same judge as the "video game" judge.

Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh JUNIOR is on the Missouri Supreme court, and is on the ballot.

Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh (senior) is the federal judge.

Re:WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[gklinger]

Bingo! +5 Informative.

See Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr. and Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. if you're intellectually curious and prefer avoiding knee-jerk political reactions.

So, shall the sins of the father (or brother, for that matter) be visited upon the sins of the son?

Re:WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[fotbr]

Well, with as many trekkies as slashdot has....more than a few are bound to be Klingon, so sins of the father being visited on the son wouldn't be out of place for them.

And before you all flame me, I'm a trekkie too, though I'm more like Morn than any Klingon. I'd be perfectly happy to sit at the bar and drink all day. :)

Re:WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[brass1]

Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh (senior) is the federal judge.

And furthermore, United States Federal Judges don't appear on ballets.

That's my Slashdot civics lesson for the day. Please remember to vote out the bums tomorrow.

Re:WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And furthermore, you've misspelled ballots.

That's my Slashdot spelling lesson for the day. Please remember to check your dictionary next time.

Re:WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, shall the sins of the father (or brother, for that matter) be visited upon the sins of the son?"

With politicians? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Re:WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[bergeron76]

Either way, they're both related to Rush Limbaugh.

Vote them all out on Tuesday to send a message that we're sick and tired of the direction this country is heading in.

Re:WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfectly logical. After all, different people raised in the same household grow up with exactly the same values, so the Limbaugh "plague" is obviously brewing.

Re:WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[WilliamSChips]

He is right. You don't usually see US Federal Judges doing ballet...

Re:WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!!

[fotbr]

Oh c'mon. That's called humor, not being off topic. In case you missed it, "Sins of the father" was a ST:TNG episode.

Re:Editors Please Stop Using Slashdot As Your Soap

[doctor_nation]

This is a technology site. And if someone is being elected that is anti-technology, I think it is completely reasonable to make the readers aware of that fact. It's not being on a soapbox- it's a piece of information that most readers of the site will be interested in.

He is not up for "retention vote"

[spiritraveller]

"US District Judge Stephen Limbaugh (yes, he IS related to Rush) along with other local judges will be up for retention vote . . .

How do I know he's not up for "retention vote"? Because he's a US district judge... a Federal judge. Federal judges are NEVER elected. They are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, and they stay there until they either resign or (if they really screw the pooch) are impeached.

Re:He is not up for "retention vote"

[mrsbrisby]

... he's a US district judge... Federal judges are NEVER elected.

Wrong.

State supreme courts are US Districut courts (Missouri's is also their Western District). Eight states have their supreme court judges appointed by the Governor, and 11 use what is called The Missouri Plan (including, intuitively Missouri). It works like this: A committee solicits applicants and conducts interviews and makes a recommendation of three people to the Governor who picks one of them. After a year on the bench the judges must run unupposed at the next general election for retention in office. Believe it or not, this vote is often called a retention vote.

You're thinking of circuit courts and not district courts. The US President also makes appointments to the Supreme court, but almost everyone knows that.

which makes Missouri (including its Western District court- their Supreme Court, the one we're talking about now), that 11

While Article III judges are appointed for life, the supreme court of Missouri (Missouri's Western District court) is an Article I tribunal (legislative) court. See for details on exactly what this means.

There are 94 federal "district courts" - including at least one district in each state.

That district is referred to as the _supreme_ court of that state, and it is that court in Missouri sir, is where Stephen Limbaugh Jr. sits.

You're thinking

Re:He is not up for "retention vote"

[deafNewt]

Take it from a lawyer in Missouri -- the parent post is correct. Federal and state court systems are separate. The U.S. District Courts are federal courts (as are the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals). The District Courts are the trial courts for the federal court system. Their terrories typically are all or part of the state where the court sits. Missouri has two U.S. District Courts -- the Eastern District (in Saint Louis) and the Western District (in Kansas City). All federal judges, including the U.S. District Court judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are not subject to retention votes. See http://www.uscourts.gov/index.html The State of Missouri has a Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals (in three districts, Eastern, Western, and Southern) and Circuit Courts (the trial courts); the judges of these courts are appointed by the Governor, and many are subject to retention votes under Missouri law. See http://www.courts.mo.gov/ The confusion is that there are several Limbaughs who are attorneys or judges in Missouri. The summary is wrong because it confuses the different Limbaughs who are judges in different courts.

Re:He is not up for "retention vote"

[spiritraveller]

State supreme courts are US Districut courts

You couldn't be more mistaken.

US district courts are the trial courts in the Federal system. The judges in those courts are Article III judges (except for the bankruptcy judges). They are separate from state courts. State supreme courts are appellate courts in their respective states (except in New York, where state trial courts are referred to as "Supreme Courts").

As was explained elsewhere, there are two Stephen Limbaughs (father and son). One of them is a Federal District Court judge. The other is up for reelection to the state supreme court. The moderator got them mixed up.

It is the Federal judge who ruled against video games as speech. But it is the state court judge who is up for reelection.

Re:He is not up for "retention vote"

[Anonymous Coward]

Take it from a lawyer in Missouri -- I dress like Colonel Sanders and enjoy dabbing mah forehead with a handkerchief.

Fixed that typo for you.

Rush Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Provide a link for those outside the US, you insensitive clod!

Re:Rush Who?

[maglor_83]

Apparently some talk show host. It seems he's a bit of an idiot, but then what talk show host isn't?

Federal Judge Seeking Reelection?

[Dausha]

"US District Judge Stephen Limbaugh . . . will be up for retention vote status this November 7th on the Missouri state ballot."

Um, sorry, but 1) Federal judges have life tenure and 2) if they did not have life tenure would not be on a state ballot. Obviously somebody was napping in their Government/Civics class---the poster and the editor who released onto /. Tenured judges are immune to popular opinion and are assumed to be able to make anti-majoritarian decisions like Miranda, Roe, and Fax-Spam. Conversely, elected state judges are more likely to be responsive to their constituents, which tends to be lawyers who fund their war chest.

So, the poster of this attack piece is trying to link the actions of a Federal judge to a state judge? While it appears they are related (Senior and Junior apparently being a dead give away), this is tantamount to punishing the son for the sins of the father. How about we try assessing the individual, elected, state judge for his own actions?

Re:Federal Judge Seeking Reelection?

[Anonymous Coward]

This almost feels like the Illinois Governor race four years ago. We were getting rid of a horrible Governor in George Ryan. A gentleman named Jim Ryan was running for Governor to replace George. They have no relation. However a few days before the election up in Chicago a flyer was sent out with Jim Ryan's name but George Ryan's face. This flyer was distributed to "select" neighborhoods.

Well Mr Blah, won the Governor's race, and Jim Ryan lost. Did this have an affect on the outcome? I am sure it did affect a number of people as they connected the last name and the face to being a very bad Governor. Did it affect the end result overall? Not sure.

One thing I am sure on is that Governor Blah (I've been calling him that since before he got elected) has tried to put an anti-gaming bill through and it was thrown out after passage due to a First Amendment reason. He does not live in the state capital, he lives in Chicago and makes us pay for his commute. He closes good programs down due to a lack of money in the budget. Imagine how much more money could be moved into that budget if it was not paying for a constant flight to and from Chicago, and then for the staff at both residences plus the other expenditures for this action.

The person running against him is not much better, but as he has had his chance and in my mind blew it, I will be voting against him to give her a chance. Yes I do not like the guy, but if he had done a better job with his first four years, then I would probably have voted for him, but he is no good, like a great number of politicians in this country.

Politician should not be a career in this country. Term limits for Consecutive Terms served should be implemented, and Congress should put a hold on their pay raises for at least ten years. Yes I got off on a few rants, but there they are.

Re:Editors Please Stop Using Slashdot As Your Soap

[Cheeko]

This is additionally relevant as tomorrow is the US election day. Irregardless of whether everyone here at /. can vote in the US, its still signifcant. US court rulings on video games, affect everyone who play them. As the parent says, technology rulings are definately of interest to the /. community at large.

Politicising the judiciary...

[Hamster Lover]

As the other poster said, the check on power is that if the judge is making bad decisions, they won't get re-elected.

Therein lies the problem, the decision to keep or unseat a judge is a political decision, not a legal one. If Judge Hardass campaigns on the issue of prayer in schools and everyone elects him and he rules in favor of school prayer in every case, how is that supposed to benefit a supposedly independant judiciary? There is no "check" for a popular judge that continues to be elected and yet ignores the law, other than a reversal of the decision in a higher court.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

So, according to this judge, commercial advertising is protected by the first amendment but artistic expression in a video game is not.

Seems pretty simple to fix, just convince him to sell his stock in office supply companies and invest in video game companies instead.