Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Anti Videogame Judge Seeks Re-election In Missouri 76

Posted by Hemos from the probably-not-the-best-suited dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti Videogame Judge Seeks Re-election In Missouri More

Anti Videogame Judge Seeks Re-election In Missouri

Comments Filter:

  • Just tell us what to think and be done with it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Monday November 06, 2006 @08:50AM (#16733839) Homepage
    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: (Score:1)

      by iainl ( 136759 )
      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.
    • Actually, it just made me wonder if there is a genetic predisposition towards being a hypocritical asshat.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dmatos ( 232892 )
        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: (Score:1)

      by hc5duke ( 930493 )

      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. [wikipedia.org]

    • 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.

      • 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 fien
    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
        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

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 )
          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

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Alsee ( 515537 )
            DLC

            I wasn't particularly familiar with the DLC, so I went and read the Wikipadia on Wikipadia on DLC [wikipedia.org] 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 [dlc.org] 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
        • Libertarians, Greens, and Pirates welcome you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      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
      • 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.
    • 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 d
  • 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.
  • 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

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

        • 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 t

          • 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.
          • 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.
      • 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-ta

  • Why do you elect judges in the United States? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Monday November 06, 2006 @09:15AM (#16734075) Journal
    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: (Score:2)

      by rlp ( 11898 )
      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.

      • 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 res

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by booch ( 4157 )
        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.
    • 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.

      • 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 igno

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      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 [wikipedia.org]).

      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 t
  • 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.
  • 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 fa

  • WRONG JUDGE LIMBAUGH!!!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tsu Dho Nimh ( 663417 ) <abacaxi.hotmail@com> on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:09AM (#16734605)
    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.

    • Bingo! +5 Informative.


      See Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr. [wikipedia.org] and Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. [wikipedia.org] 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: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by fotbr ( 855184 )
        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: (Score:2)

          by fotbr ( 855184 )
          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: (Score:2)

      by brass1 ( 30288 )
      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.
    • 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.

  • "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.

    • ... 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 [wikipedia.org] (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

      • 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 judge
      • 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 F

  • Federal Judge Seeking Reelection? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Monday November 06, 2006 @12:04PM (#16736137) Homepage
    "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?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close