Your case with Judge Judy: Men, would you really go??

While I am disgusted with that statement, I am not one to suddenly hate someone for one remark, no matter how stupid.

Imagine the stupidest thing you ever said.

Now imagine the world judging you, the whole person, on that statement alone.

Why is everyone so mad about Judge Judy’s statement about drug addicts? I think anyone who’s been burglarized, mugged, or carjacked by a junkie, or anyone who has been given a deadly disease by a junkie, or anyone who has seen drug addicted babies born, or anyone whose family has been destroyed because of a junkie, or anyone injured in a moving vehicle driven by a junkie - why, I think that person would kind of side with Judge Judy, wouldn’t they? I’m sure she has seen the very dregs of humanity in her profession, and the havoc they wreak on those who CHOSE NOT to sniff, snort, shoot, etc.

I’m not unsympathetic to your disgust with widespread addiction and drug-related crime; I’ve seen the horrors it can cause, as have we all. But merrily condemning an entire class of people – no matter how screwed up their lives are – to death by any of several ghastly diseases has struck many of us as a wee bit extreme.

The point about judging someone from one remark is well taken. But a public person in a public forum, especially one who prides herself on being a verbal “straight shooter,” could well be expected to have a bit more restraint.

Catrandom

Well if we gave all the junkies dirty needles, they’d end up spreading AIDS to the rest of us through sexual contact.

Addiction is a disease and I really don’t think killing the infected organism is the best way to control a disease.

Not every junkie is out robbing people, and hardly any junkies would be if their stuff was legal and they could afford it. What about an alcoholic that robs a liquor store or drives drunk? Should we give him poisoned Jim Beam?

Judge Judy’s comments were morally dispicable.

Judge Judy’s bailiwick is the law, not social arbitration. I would no more consider her comments on social justice–save where it cosses the path of law–than I would conisder the comments of Regis Philbin on dentistry, Mark McGwire on nuclear physics, or Bill Gates on show tunes. In any case, objective discussion of AIDS belongs to doctors, not judges.

I find it necessary to modify the tenor of the last posting I made, because I went to Judge Judy’s website; apparently her remarks about drug use raised such a howl she felt compelled to append a message–her side of the story–to her webpage. You may find it at www.judgejudy.com/drugs2.html if you don’t believe me. It’s a clear case of walking a mile in someone else’s moccasins as a prerequisite to judging that person.

      • .J Judy annoys me, for the same reasons many TV personalities do. I’d go in with a fake bomb strapped to my chest, find her in contempt of the mighty schlong and sentence her to star in three (3) Penthouse videos. - MC
  • “The film crew is waiting on the back parking lot, your honor.”

MC, I think you would do just as well facing off with Xantippe; or did you once drink hemlock? :wink:

Mysentiments exactly!

'nuff said.


“It is now proved beyond doubt that smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.”

      • I don’t know that I’d be killing people over being addicted, but I fail to see how it is everyone else’s fault, either. There might be legitimate claims, but I very much doubt all the claims of addiction are valid. Many of the drug addicts I know of have two things I don’t: (1)rich parents, who will (2)come and mop up the mess adfterwards, whatever it is. - I have a particular desire to grab a couple naked pre-teen girls, steal a convertable Corvette and cruise down the highway at a hundred and twenty slugging Wild Turkey, but I don’t. I would lose the things I have worked hard to accomplish; there’s nobody that would replace them. If I ever did it though, would you say that I was addicted, or merely an idiot? What is an addict, someone who does something harmful more than once? How many times would I have to do it to be considered an idiot? - Excuses for personal shortcomings has been a growth industry for several decades now. The excuses still sound much the same. Has anything improved? - MC

I’d go in with a fake bomb strapped to my chest, find her in contempt of the mighty schlong and sentence her to star in three (3) Penthouse videos. - MC

That’s sick!
Subjecting innocent porn lovers to Judge Judy’s entire nakedness! :eek:
You could give someone a heart attack.


Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

As a regular court judge she made $110,000 per year & she now makes $150,000 per week.

Her books are unsettling. Some of the time she depends so much on Jerry & other times no.

Frankly, I think that she would give me a fairer chance than anything I can get locally.

      • Well, we could go to Hustler video. I’d feel kinda mean doing that, though. It’s too much like “cruel and unusually sticky punishment”. - MC

Sometimes I wonder if she isn’t living out a judge’s fantasy – the ability to sit on the bench, be confronted by stupidity, and lash out at it, unfettered by canons of judicial ethics.

I have spent two days snowed in, and had a taste of Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, and Divorce Court. The first two at least make a pretense of judicial demeanor at times; this woman that presides in Divorce Court does more inflaming than settling.

I know the whole legal system doesn’t enjoy a sterling reputation in the eyes of the public, but crap like this doesn’t really help.

  • Rick

divorce court? Isnt that one all scripted?

      • Yea, but it’s based on real prime-time crime dramas.
      • I kinda like watching TV commercials for these shows: such choices, only in America. You can have doctor shows, cop shows and lawyer shows. Often you have combinations of any two, and now there’s Third Watch, which apparently hedges it’s bets by being all three. Dammit (slamming fist on desk) that’s brilliant!!! Using that as a springboard, they can do anything! Cops, lawyers and doctors, in a plane crash! Inside a Turkish prison! During the yearly Ms. Prison Queen contest! Any fool can see, the possibilities are endless. - Those pro writers are simply amazing. - MC

Judge Judy is hard (and blatantly real) with both genders…Now if the judge was Oprah or S S S Sally Jessie (sp) Raphael (sp there too is probably off)
I would not go
I would not go
I would not go

White knuckled, vein-faced, and screaming for mercy.

When I watch Judge Judy, and she is speaking, it outrages me to see and hear the person she’s talking to, rudely interrupt her! :mad: That’s the kind of thing your parents try to teach you when you’re learning manners; hel-loooo…
So I was delighted recently when she was admonishing a plaintiff–a woman plaintiff, incidentally–and the woman interrupted her.
Judge Judy snapped, “I’m speaking!”
The plaintiff shot back with, “So?”
The judge didn’t waste any time. She announced, “Your case is dismissed.” :slight_smile:
In the last few days I have been indexing some videotapes. I came across one with the case of Wolfe v. Mundy, in which a 71-year-old man was beset with serious health problems even in the courtroom, so Judge Judy allowed him to sit down. He had a fender-bender with a young woman; to make the story real short, he had insurance, but she did not–and she even lied in court when Judge Judy prodded her to show written communication from her insurer. Mr. Wolfe, the plaintiff, smugly stated that he had found out from his own insurer that Ms. Mundy did not have insurance–a violation of CA law. The judge bawled out the pretty, young Ms. Mundy for trying to win her over with fake tears, and mentioning “construction worker” witness who, as Judge Judy obvserved, were smart enough not to come to court and lie for this woman. This is, to me, Exhibit A against the notion Judge Judy is biased against men. (Stewart Wolfe was no hunk, either–he was 71, balding, pudgy, and wore glasses, and, as I noted, was hard put to stay standing for any time. And Ms. Mundy accused him of assaulting her!)