Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  in session

Judge Judy Tells Larry King Why He Doesn’t Understand Marriage Discrimination, Why She Supports Ousting Iowa Judges

Last night on Larry King Live, Judge Judy rattled off a checklist of character traits she doesn’t give a shit about. Now LOOK AT THOSE ROCKS ON HER EARS!, and let that distract you from Judy defending Iowa voters’ decision to oust those legislating-from-the-bench gay-supporting judges.

By:           JD
On:           Nov 11, 2010
Tagged: , ,

  • 40 Comments
    • B
      B

      QUEERTY: “Judy defending Iowa voters’ decision to oust gay-supporting judges.” …. she didn’t support it.

      She made a general statement that voters can reasonably oust judges who take on the role of legislatures, but not those who simply say what the laws imply. She also pointed out that having judges subject to elections might not be such a good idea.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 5:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GregorVonK
      GregorVonK

      Does she even realize that she’s talking out of both sides of her mouth???

      Nov 11, 2010 at 5:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GayGOP
      GayGOP

      And what happened in Iowa is exactly why we need an unelected, allegedly “unaccountable” judiciary.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 5:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MykeL
      MykeL

      For the most part she makes a good point. I may not be a fan of hers, but I certainly appreciate that her stance on specific issues is “judicially impartial”. She manages to stay on the side of precedent and so on without bringing in too much personal views.

      And mostly, she wasn’t so much supporting the decision of the votes themselves, but was defending the voter’s rights to elect, since that is a right that the sate of Iowa gives its voters (regardless of how “unfair” or illogical or whatever the ability to fire-by-vote for a high-level judge is).

      Now, the idea that you vote for someone based on the issues they support and not the party itself is an idea lost on most voters, but Judy certainly could have pointed that out.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      The reason for courts being somewhat out of voters control federally is because they need to interpret the actual constitution and not whatever fad, bigotry, or current backlash is going on.

      If the Supreme Court justices were electable would we have gotten Schools desegregated when we did? Interacial Marriage?

      Nov 11, 2010 at 6:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 2 · GregorVonK wrote, “Does she even realize that she’s talking out of both sides of her mouth???”

      She wasn’t – what she seemed to think would be reasonable grounds for voters throwing out a judge would be case such as a Mormon judge deciding that the sale of alcohol should be illegal when there was no law making it illegal. That would be a true “activist judge”, as opposed to a judge who makes an unpopular decision by throwing out laws that are in fact unconstitutional.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 6:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      She said: she hopes we’re moving toward marriage equality; Iowa voters voted, which is what they’re supposed to do (while obliquely saying that voting for judges may not be a good idea); the only justification for removing judges is if they legislate, but the Iowa Justices didn’t legislate; if you run for office as a partisan candidate, you should not be allowed to switch parties while keeping the office.

      Hard to disagree with any of it.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 7:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mikenola
      mikenola

      I may personally feel Judge Judy needs to have her vocal cords removed because of her annoying voice and inane tv judge shtick but get over yourself!

      Her statement is exactly correct and is the viewpoint that WE lgbt people, in fact all voters, should be taking.

      Judges are there to make sure that the legislature does not enact (or apply) laws that are constitutionally incorrect. They are not there to make law. The republicans, tea baggers and religious haters have taken possession of the phrase “judicial activism” to slander any ruling they don’t like even if those rulings are constitutionally correct.

      Supreme Court Judges at the state level are voted into office, which is a problem with many facets though I am not sure that state supreme court judges should have lifetime appointments either.

      The voters in Iowa spoke, even though I disagree with their vote, that is how they voted.

      Claiming that the Jewish Lady Judge is double speaking is completely off base and out of context to the clip you show.

      The LGBT community and media cannot dive into the whining and misinformation that the haters thrive on, that would only weaken our position and demonstrate we are as bad as they are.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      Yeah, I agree with most comments. I so expected her to piss me off but she turned out to be speaking truth. Just what I’ve come to expect from Judge Judy.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 7:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • j
      j

      Gotta love the judge. Hearing she feels this way about gay people makes me like her even more :D

      Nov 11, 2010 at 8:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      Ugh, liberals talking equality out of one side of their mouth and then advocating “socially conservative” policy strategies make me want to grab up the AK and just walk out the f*cking door. If you’re so hetero-privileged, love, and you’d like to share that? Perhaps consider that it’s not you’re decision to make!! You freakin’ old hag, I am worthy, and since you don’t understand the implications of that, and the law backs ME up, step aside or fuck off! Your choice as an American. (That is if you still are one, after the gluttony of feeding off of the rest of us has finished influencing you.)

      Nov 11, 2010 at 8:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      @ADMAN: you are an idiot!

      Nov 11, 2010 at 9:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      I am not going to even watch the video. Judge Judy should be disbarred. She is a disgrace to the decorum expected in every courtroom in this country and she and those behind her are a danger to american jurispudence. I say SHAME on every one of us for not demanding she be ousted from ever practicing law or sitting on any bench. Allowing her to continue wearing the black robe is DANGEROUS.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 9:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      Just to point out reality to interrupt NOM’s fantasy world, 35% of Iowa voters always vote to oust judges regardless of any rulings and regardless of any campaigns. So, the 55% that ousted the top judges in Iowa were mostly people (35%) who didn’t give a crap about the ruling. That’s the reality of it.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 9:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @ewe:
      Why should Judge Judy be disbarred? If we’re taking dangers to American jurisprudence, let’s discuss a member or two of SCOTUS.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 9:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry
      Henry

      Just one problem with the voting out of the judges thing. The activist label only applies when they go against Tea Party rhetoric. That is extremely dangerous to our republic.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 10:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ronboq
      Ronboq

      If her brain were as big as her ego, I’d watch the video. Too bad she was in law school back in the ’30s – I understand that she studied how a black person is only 2/3 of a white person.

      I won’t cry when the old millionaire bigot dies. She is a horrible person – to the core.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 10:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @Henry:

      Yes, good point. In the fifties the “activist judges” were the ones who voted for desegregation. Most of the public would have voted them off the bench if they could.

      @Ronboq:

      Maybe you should have watched the video. She questioned the logic of being able to vote judges out that you disagree with. And why is she a bigot? Don’t just toss allegations like that without proof. That’s actually very, uh, Tea Party of you ….

      Nov 11, 2010 at 10:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JustWatching
      JustWatching

      Don’t forget, too, that Judge Judy has performed marriage ceremonies for gay men.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 10:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JustWatching
      JustWatching

      Siluwe : YOU’RE talking about tossing allegations without proof?? Judging by your comments under this article, tossing allegations without proof is not a tea party thing to do. It’s a Siluwe thing. http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2006/04/hiv_vaccine_and.html

      Nov 11, 2010 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Taylor Siluwé: Judge Judy Sheindlin and her handlers have the plaintiff and defendant sign off their rights. Despite that, my issue is that any and ALL cases that Judge Judy Sheindlin presides over would be eligible for appeal solely on HER behavior if but for that waiver. That cannot even be compared to the Supreme Court Taylor.

      Nov 11, 2010 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Danton
      Danton

      @Ronboq: Is there anyone on Queerty as dumb as you? It was the 3/5 compromise, not the 2/3 compromise. It was the slave states that wanted
      Blacks to be counted as a full person for the purposes of the census because that way the slave states would get more representatives in congress. The free states said that Blacks shouldn’t be counted at all in the South since the South wasn’t treating them as persons.

      Finally, the compromise ended in 1868, so even if Judge Judy had gone to law school in the 30s, which she didn’t, she wouldn’t have been taught that the 3/5 compromise was the law. You are such a racially insensitive bigot that you can’t be bothered to learn about events of importance to African Americans. My guess is that you are white, blow lots of money in the clubs and at circuit parties, and always call yourself LGBT.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @JustWatching:
      The “Duke” thing again? Don’t you get tired of stalking me with that?

      Tossing basely allegations is a Tea Party thing, unless of course you’ve spent the last year being an idiot.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @ewe:

      Of course it can’t be compared to the Supreme Court, its a TV show. As such, I think putting the fall of American jurisprudence (and society as we know it) on her shoulders is unfair.

      SCOTUS however ….

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JustWatching
      JustWatching

      Nope. You epitomize gay racist and heterophobic evil, Siluwe. To wish such torture on an innocent person? You were probably down there in Durham with the homophobic New Black Panthers chanting “…guilty..” and making sure to single out the Jew Seligmann to threaten his life. Hatred makes strange bedfellows of you types.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 1:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ~R~
      ~R~

      @ewe: then you really shouldn’t be commenting, should you?

      Nov 12, 2010 at 1:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Taylor Siluwé: I am not talking about her. That’s my point. Her position is higher than her own self. She is failing miserably at promoting justice and anyone could successfully appeal her ruling based on HER BEHAVIOR alone. That does not even address the substance of whatever case is before her. Just because she has a television show does not mean she should be permitted to shred our laws and theoretically force people to spend more money on justice by having to surpass the first step toward justice. The purpose of small claims court is for the laymen to represent themselves without legal counsel. She is representing the people when she is in that robe. All she does is scream and yell at them. It is unacceptable and she should be removed from her position. One does not get to actually rape a person while simulating rape on a television show. Your summary is all fucked up. The US constitution is not around for entertainment purposes. This is rediculous if people can not grasp that concept.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 2:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @~R~: You will have to elaborate. Am is supposed to know what you are referring to?

      Nov 12, 2010 at 2:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ Maciejeski
      CJ Maciejeski

      ummmm…i fail to see how we’ve elevated made-for-tv small claims court to the same level as a state or the US Supreme Court. I must’ve missed the memo that judgments under two grand and constitutional jurispruene are suddenly the same. At any rate, her points are valid. Despite the illogical idea of making judges beholden to constituencies, the voters of iowa exercised their (state) constitutionally guaranteed right to fire-by-vote. Stupid? Yeah. But legal! Until such things are amended, the situation is what it is.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 3:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ Maciejeski
      CJ Maciejeski

      errr…jusrisprudence.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 3:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      ok, she is just being a good judge, and speaking without bias towards the issue, so we shouldnt harp on her just because it’s something we dont want to hear…..

      the main thing we should focus on, is that she supports gay marriage!

      Nov 12, 2010 at 7:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike.C.
      Mike.C.

      No, the main thing we should be focusing on is the fact that in our country…our judges are now NOT protecting the minority but simply adhereing to bully tactics of the majority. Gay people dismissing this are the same types of gays who say “well, so what everyone around me doesn’t believe in gay marriage, that’s THEIR opinion. oh well!”…gays like that are part of the problem and not solution to getting us out of being the last remaining demographic of injustice being faced.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 8:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      @Jeremy: Deeply sound, iron clad arguments there Jeremy. Do you like my trolling? Just working on the ‘ol chops!

      Nov 12, 2010 at 9:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      No. 29 · CJ Maciejeski

      Of course its not the same, per se – still, my point was to EWE’s attacking her for basically giving our legal system a black eye. My example was certain Justices do that much better, are much more disastrous for the rest of us, and if complaining was in order it should be about that a not a TV show which I happen to enjoy.

      No. 27 · ewe

      I understand were you’re coming from. A lot of people simply HATE Judge Judy because she’s brash and rude and sometimes belittles people who come before her bench. But these people know what they’re in for. They didn’t just arrive from Pluto. Would you take a case before Judy? Probably not. Neither would I, unless I was 100% sure I was in the right and wouldn’t be made a fool of before the world.

      It seems to me this is more about her abrasive persona rubbing you the wrong way than her court TV show embarrassing our justice system.

      As it stands now, her comments above are absolutely fair and accurate (as is usually the case, IMHO). And she’s an equality supporter; maybe you should give her a break for that at least.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 10:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @Taylor Siluwé: and i understand your point. I resent the rich (in this case the television network) paying the recipients to be mocked BY A JUDGE and then telling the public this is a real court hearing. It is not real. Courts do not offer to pay either side. SO… that leads me to say why the fuck care what this piece of dirt says on her own time? She is a charlatan ruining our precious resources.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      Judge Judy while good on not discriminating, seems to miss the concept that a minority population MUST be protected from the tyranny of the Majority, who has the population to elect legislators.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      Remember we are trying to obtain the administration of our equal rights through the courts. This Judy witch symbolizes that struggle. It does not matter what an individual thinks. Your neighbor liking you and thinking you deserve the same rights is not important. A law and ruling saying we deserve the same rights IS necessary and no judge like this judge is on the side of impartiality no matter how many people tout manufactured consent.

      Nov 12, 2010 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GregorVonK
      GregorVonK

      I don’t think she states her case particularly well or clearly. I realize she basically believes in marriage equality, but she also seems to be saying that it’s just fine that the judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage could be voted out. Also I disagree vehemently that legislators (or any elected official) should simply reflect the beliefs and standards of the electorate that put them in. Legislators and exectutives are there to LEAD, not simply serve as the mouthpiece of the electorate (however they perceive that to be). And elected judges are still supposed to interpret the law fairly and impartially–and not make decisions that reflect the “will of the people” (assuming they could even determine what that IS).

      Judy Scheindlin is a colorful character, and her heart may be in the right place, but she is–if not actually speaking out of both sides of her mouth–rambling and is seemingly inconsistent. She makes the point that “some people” believe that judges should not be elected at all, but then seems to suggest that those who are should reflect the will of the electorate. THAT’S inconsistent–or downright muddled.

      She probably would have been better off to expand on just THAT point (namely, the wisdom of even having elected judges)

      Nov 12, 2010 at 10:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hglyfavored
      Hglyfavored

      I use to believe Judge Judy was a serious show and I would get so angry at the way she treated people. However once I realized the show is just for entertainment I watch it and laugh at it.

      Nov 16, 2010 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      @Hglyfavored: Exactly.
      No one is forcing Judge Judy to take the cases brought by brain-dead litigants, but if she adjudicated cases brought by articulate people, who had some sense how to conduct themselves in court, there’d be no excuse for her impatient prickly act, and that’s the whole show.

      It’s shtict, but it’s entertaining.

      Nov 16, 2010 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.