Judge Judy: The Most Evil Woman In The World?

Robert, get back in your box, you are a very naughty boy. We could clean up the family courts of all the anglophile nations with just half a battalion of Judge Judys. She can smell a false accuser when they are still outside the court building and freeze them with a glare as they get to her door. If they get closer she cuts them to pieces with that supertongue. Yes, she does have some drawbacks – she doesn’t eat their gizzards. (but wait till next season!)

You just had to mention Britney Spears, didn’t you? LOL.

Come on, Judge Judy is entertaining! What is the difference between her and Jerry Springer? Aside from cat fights?

I always thought she would make such a good mother figure! Hahaha!

I think it is strange how she can get away with being so cruel, when the people who go before her are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

You have issues with women who are in power, dude. Judge Judy is a very intelligent, shrewd woman who sees through ignorance. She is doing this country a SERVICE with her show. The people who appear on her show are the worst of the gene pool. She’s a great lady with much wisdom. Your nasty comments indicate you feel threatened by women in power. I’m sure she’d eat up your defective gonads if you were to appear before her. She can see through superficial people like you. How dare you insult the wonderful person. It’s offensive and ignorant.

I think the people who appear before her do so for a fee (similar to the People’s Court with Judge Wapner who by contrast is a nice, sweet old man.)

I think the worst judge on the TV bench has to be judge Mathis. One poor guy came before him after his ex-wife dumped bleach all over his clothes. Instead of getting his money back, the good judge lectured him about the importance of paying “child” support and how he was now basically a slave of the state and then said that any money that he would get after the ex trashed his clothes should go to child support anyway.

Crazycatguy, are you Judge Judy’s son, publicist or pet groomer?

The problem with Judge Judy is that if she ever enforced the constitutional rights of the fathers who appeared before her in the real, not television, courts of the state of New York, I have yet to hear about it.

That’s why I behave myself. I wouldn’t want to face that woman. Only two women scare me: Judge Judy and Pink (she looks like Billy Idol, only meaner).

Judge Judy?

/scratches head..

Reyes,

GET A JOB!

kzarz said,

“Only two women scare me: Judge Judy and Pink (she looks like Billy Idol, only meaner).”

Wow, Pink really does look like Billy Idol. No wonder I was always a little bit scared of her.

You don’t find Judge Judy “cute”?

I would have to be drunk, stoned, clobbered upside the head and hooked up to an I.V solution of Viagra to find Judge Judy cute.

Just be thankful she’s not flashing her goodies ala Britney.

Judge Judy loves dads! I have to disagree with your opinion of Judge Judy Sheindlin. From my blog post in 2005: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/10/12/fathers-and-laura-bush-judy-sheindlin-its-about-time-pbs-billboards/

———————–
When Judy Sheindlin was on Larry King Live last week, (October 4, 2005), the issue of joint custody came up. An excerpt from the interview:

KING: I had a judge who became a federal judge told me once that the hardest thing to decide was custody cases…

SHEINDLIN: Yes. Sometimes it’s relatively easy because the choices are clear but I’ve always thought in this country we do a terrible disservice to fathers. You know there was a time many years ago when we had what we called the Tender Years Doctrine, which meant children of tender years, young children, always went to their mother.

And then all of the courts in this country said that’s not fair. We have to be equal. So, on the books there is a law that says no one parent is favored over the other, now that’s honored more in the breach than it is honored in actuality. And, I have been a proponent for many years of there being a presumption in this country for joint custody of children. That’s where courts should start.

KING: That’s where you begin?

SHEINDLIN: That’s where you begin and if you’re going to deviate from that, you have to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there is some valid reason why you’re going to deviate from that because one parent is crazy, one parent has a drug problem, an alcohol problem, something’s wrong.

But that should be the standard joint custody because children are entitled to be raised by two parents even if the parents don’t get along anymore. I mean I think it’s horrendous when one parent picks up and moves out of the state or moves 250 miles away and some judge in the family court, the domestic relations court usually if it’s the mother who has moved away says, “Well, we’ll have a hearing to determine whether it was the right thing.”

No, no, no, no, no. You can’t say to people who you’ve lulled into this sense of I’m equal, you’re an equal father. You can take off paternity leave. We expect you to participate in the rearing of your children, to go to open school night, to be out there to play with them. Very often there are two people working in the household. They divide authority and you’re equal except when there’s a divorce.

And then, how often, Larry, I ask you the question, do you hear it quoted in the paper “He lost custody of his children”? You don’t hear that. You hear “She lost custody. There must be something wrong with her.”

Well I think that that has to change in this country because it was my experience in the family court, and I left the family court ten years ago, but even my experience on the television courtroom suggests to me that there are as wonderful a group of fathers out there as a group of mothers and it’s about time that this country recognize that in not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well.
—————————-

Judge Judy is a conservative, and you don’t like her. Well cut my arms off and call me clothespin.

As for her looks, she definitely beats the crap out of typical liberal women, like Hillary, Nancy, Janet, Madelyn, et al.

Squiggy, I have scissors… come here, clothespin!

Squiggy, I have to give you this one. I can imagine Judge Judy being feminine, but under no circumstances can I picture Hillary being feminine. Her idea of foreplay would be discussing her national health plan.

I understand and appreciate what Judge Judy said on Larry King Live.
My question is did she PRACTICE what she preached when she was a real judge in the real family courts of New York?
When one is earning several million dollars per year with a television show, it is mighty easy to speak truth.
It is another thing when you are taking the King’s shilling while sitting as a judge in a family court and your decisions have real impact on the lives of the people who appear before you.
And real impact on whether you will be allowed to continue to take the King’s shilling as a government employee.

The idea of Hillary, or any of those women, having foreplay makes me sick! But
I am sure that discussing national health care would turn on some man, lol!

An example of why Judge Judy is so evil:

“DrugSense FOCUS Alert #139 Wednesday December 8, 1999

Judy Sheindlin, the former family court judge who now plays a judge on TV (“Judge Judy”), was in Australia last month promoting her new book when she made some outrageous comments that illustrated the depth of the hate produced by the war on drugs.

According to the Australia Courier-Mail, Sheindlin made an appearance in Brisbane, Australia on November 16 where she said the debate about needle supply to heroin addicts is an indulgence lead by “liberal morons.” The solution is simple, she said. “Give ‘em dirty needles and let ‘em die. . .I don’t understand why we think it’s important to keep them alive.”

(To read longer accounts, see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1245/a07.html and http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1245/a06.html)”

she said. “Give ‘em dirty needles and let ‘em die. . .I don’t understand why we think it’s important to keep them alive.”

I hate to sound cold and heartless (tongue in cheek) but are they not trying to kill themselves, albeit slowly? If our society gives someone the power to choose life or death for another (i.e. infant humans), why can’t we choose it for ourselves?

Most drug addicts are not trying to kill themselves, they are crying out for help. And we most show them compassion, not indifference.

Funny Judge Judy video:

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/976/Judge_Judy_Parody.html

The typical liberal says (hard) drug-abusers are crying out for help. But it’s not true. Go to a Narcotics Anonymous meeting (on Fridays they are open to everyone) and you will find out the truth. The average shooter IS trying to kill themselves. Eventually they die, or they try to change (though the relapse rate is huge, and those people usually sink even lower.) Sad, yes. But pretending the truth is not the truth is even sadder.

P.S. I DO realize not all of them fit the term “abuser” any more than all drinkers fit the term “drunkard”. I say legalize it and help those that want help.

Drug users, addicts, are crying out for help that is undeserved. They are not ill other than from the drugs they freely chose to take. They all know full well the risks of taking drugs. Most need a huge amount of money for their pastime and yet, because of their drug use, earn next to nothing from work that contributes to either society’s well being or their own. So they steal. They mug people. They are into crime more than any other demographic. Few are mentally deficient so the choices they make is not from lack of normal appraisal. They choose their fate. They chose to commit crime. The people they steal from or mug don’t.

They do not deserve sympathy. Leave sympathy and compassion for those people who do deserve it. If someone laid down in the middle of a busy highway, would you be sympathetic or call them fools. If they want to die then let them. Save the child who inadvertently runs infront of a car.

Ask yourself this Robert. If there was a junkie on the road and a child strayed onto the road as well, which would you try to save? Then tell me why.

It’s easy to love a cute little girl, but we should love the unlovable.

Matthew 5:44-48 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Methinks he doth protest too much. This is just a stupid TV show, and Mr. Reyes writes an essay about it?

Definately, definately, 3PM, wapner, wapner, definately

RPR, “It’s easy to love a cute little girl, but we should love the unlovable”. Not relevant RPR. Presumably God loved Jesus too but didn’t save him. Tough love is tough. One can love the addict and the stupid, even the Good, but when it comes to saving them, that’s another issue entirely.

I have to say, I’d have more compassion on a little girl than on a drug addict. If an addict won’t help themselves, they won’t accept help from anyone. I’m not saying I hate them, I’m just saying that if I had a chance to save a little girl, who probably wants to live and experience life, I would do that over an addict.

I hope that goes for a little boy, too, KVolz.

Of course, I love little boys, too. I just now realized you used the word “child” in post 24. Robert was the one that said “it’s easy to love a cute little girl”, so I forgot when you questioned him it was about a child in general, not just about a girl. I have two young nephews, and I love them so much

For the real men?

Complaining, saying “not fair” does absolutely nothing.

Get back to me when you, you, and you, are willing to protest…

Get back to me when you are actually willing to go to jail for your beliefs…

Eric Ericson
Eric87443@hotmail.com

When RPR quotes Matthew 5:44-48 he raises an important point, but more important still is exactly how do we love drug addicts? I would say that by providing them with free needles in exchange for used, by providing them with a safe environment to practice their addiction (both of which we do here in the land of Oz) we do not love them so much as we kill them.

Similarly, the war on drugs is a monumental failure beside which the most arousing wet dreams of the political left of American failure in Iraq pale into insignificance.

There comes a time in every parents life when the parent must put aside their desire to control their children and wince in anticipation of the disasters that their children’s foolish behavior will inevitably accrue. Yet adult drug addicts are not children of government: they are, in fact, parents of government with a responsibility for the governments behavior, not the other way around.

Those drug addicts who honestly desire help in kicking their addiction should be provided with every assistance that their loving and rejoicing peers can reasonably provide. Yet we must honor the choice made by those either do not want help or will not ask for it. This is truly loving behavior because it refuses to enable the loved in their self destructive behavior.

IMO Judge Judy’s comments are far more loving of the drug addicted than those which call for the state to enable the self destructive behavior of drug addicts.

Dr Damage says: Yet we must honor the choice made by those either do not want help or will not ask for it.”

In some cases I am prepared to honour the choices anyone makes, but that is not dependant on some blanket lack of assessment of the choices themselves. I have no internal compulsions to honour bad choices, bad behaviours, bad actions, bad words, bad ideas, bad music, and damned if I will have such a compulsory obligation thrust upon me, by mantra of otherwise.

I am under no obligation to honour anything. I chose to honour much and many. They can be assured that it is authentic. Even Christ had millstones in reserve.