Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot,
by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse.
" -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

The Decline of the American Legal System Marches On

Move over, Judge Judy. There's a new TV courtroom judge coming to town – and it's none other than former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The [failed] onetime vice presidential candidate has been tapped to preside over a new reality court show that would premiere next year. She signed a deal in February with Montana-based production company Warm Springs, a source close to the process tells PEOPLE.
I've had conversations with a few judges who, when the topic of Judge Judy comes up, become almost livid. People who come to their courts have acted like the "litigants" on Judge Judy and more and more, people dress like those on the show.

Frankly, the Former Half-Term Governor of Alaska is no more qualified to act as a judge than your average fourth-grader, and the kid might do a better job of it.

The founders of that production company, Chris Richardson and Marc Pierce, should be flogged through the streets of Missoula with a rusted set of truck tire chains. There's likely no shortage of judges who would be happy to sign such an order.

8 comments:

w3ski said...

I thought you had to have more than an attitude and a mouth to even be a TV judge. Judge Thomas excluded. I guess we have really gone down the Rabbit Hole. I can't wait till she quits, again.
w3ski

Paul Wartenberg said...

you would think that a judge - even one for a television show - should have appropriate background for the job, like for starters a freaking JD or at least a Paralegal degree.

This is like hiring a pastry chef to host a show on brain surgery and expect said chef to be the lead surgeon. Madness.

This isn't going to be a real show about the law. This is going to be some goddamn vanity project that mocks entire courtroom procedures and the legal rights of every American.

CenterPuke88 said...

Read the disclaimers on the "Judge" shows. Both parties agree this will settle their suit, and are agreeing to what amounts to a chance to settle for no personal costs. The "judgements" are paid by the show. I strongly suspect they video two or three cases for every one they broadcast.

montag said...

Pity the poor producer, trying to find "litigants" who won't look and sound smarter than the judge.

Comrade Misfit said...

CP88, right, but most people who watch those shows don't pay any attention to the disclaimers. They think that's how the legal system works.

Montag, that production company has a track record of producing shows nobody's ever heard of. The "Judge Palin Froths At the Mouth" show might be their biggest hit.

Dan said...

Everything you say about these shows is true. However I have ZERO
sympathy for the blackrobed pirates infesting the bench and their
petty selfish overinflated egos.

CenterPuke88 said...

Your observation applies to any number of things and problems in today's society. If people would read the fine-print, most problems would be avoided...but that takes effort (and often either some legal background or a good education).

BadTux said...

I don't know about the other judge shoes, but "Judge Judy" is a binding arbitration forum. Both parties have agreed to binding arbitration of their dispute. The judgement is real, but is enforced by a real court enforcing the arbitration agreement.

Sadly, the way "Judge Judy" conducts her "court" is not much different from how "real" binding arbitration like in your credit card agreement takes place. You come in and say you paid your credit card bill and show the cancelled check, the credit card company comes in and says nuh-uhn you didn't pay your credit card bill and shows a printout purporting to be of your account with no record of the check, the arbiter says "I dunno who cashed your check but it wasn't the credit card company, I find in favor of the credit card company, pay on the way out the door," and slam bam thank you ma'am. Takes all of five minutes to rubber stamp the predetermined decision of the "judge". Yet real judges don't seem to have any problem with this travesty, given that they find in favor of the decisions of the arbiters time after time even when it's clear that this kind of consumer arbitration is a travesty (in one study, there was five -- FIVE -- cases out of over a million cases heard by arbiters that were found in favor of the consumer). I suppose the fact that it is hidden away from cameras and thus can be hushed up allows this travesty to continue without any reaction by real judges while getting real judges hot under the collar about that the on-camera travesty...