Law Student on the People's Court:
So this clip is old, and it's from a TV show not a real court, but it's so painful and yet engaging I though readers might be interested. It's of a second-year law student appearing on "the People's Court" and getting his rear-end handed to him for not being respectful to the judge.
Ouch! Of course, the irony is that this sort of disrespect is quite common on TV shows about the courts, and this is a TV show. Oh well.
Thanks to Sua Sponte for the link.
Ouch! Of course, the irony is that this sort of disrespect is quite common on TV shows about the courts, and this is a TV show. Oh well.
Thanks to Sua Sponte for the link.
I'm always amazed at judicial exceptionalism too with respect to the First Amendment, even carving out exceptions to sanction lawyers who dare to criticize the tribunal. O'Connor's very thin skin to judicial criticism comes to mind and her hyperbolic comparisons to Nazi Germany when judges faced criticism by admittedly gas-bag Republican legislators. Perhaps the appointments process is not nearly rough enough. We need judges with spine, not ones who require approbation.
It would be more apt if the former surgeon put on his labcoat in the middle of a three-ring circus with bears and clowns jumping all around him, while he waves a big fake foam scalpel. TV court is not real court, regardless of whether the officiant used to be a real judge.
Either they should run it like a court room or they should run it like a circus. But they shouldn't switch back and forth between the two formats in mid show, because the appropriate behavior for one format is very inappropriate for the other.
They should also go out of their way to pick a judge who isn't an asshole. I shouldn't be filled with an urge to strangle her within 10 seconds of her beginning to speak. Unless encouraging violence against judges is the point of the show?
[Judge Rayford fires a gun in his courtroom, drawing attention]
"Judge Rayford: Gentlemen, need I remind you you're in a court of law?"
From the judges I've met, becoming a judge is about who you know, now what you know or how well you know it. Obviously you can't be dangerously stupid, but being selected for a judgeship is not a meritocracy, unless you count networking and political gamesmanship to be merits.
And what a surprise, she's a female minority who happens to have spent her whole professional career in Florida government legal practice before being nominated by the Florida governor. And her husband happens to be a prominent judge. Gosh, what a happy pile of coincidences.
The pompus ass of a "judge," obviously. I don't care what her professional accomplishments are, either as a member of the Bar or the Bench: she's on a COURT TV SHOW. He can laugh in her face (and after that outburst, he should have), tell her to go to Hell, and waltz out of the courtroom . . . because she's not a judge up there. His first words after "you're an embarrasment" should have been "No, I'm not the one playing a judge on daytime TV. Now what, you going to find me in contempt of fake court?"
And without knowing what was in the contract the People signed, its hard to know if the "judge" is due any real deference, isn't it?
Yeah, that's why she gets everything in life handed to her.
So you'd advocate being disrespectful in a state court? And if not, would you advocate being disrespectful in an administrative hearing? How about arbitration? Are only Article 3 judges prestigious enough to give a litigant a lecture on properly addressing a judge?
Moreover, the commentary here is correct. This was TV court, not real court. The same procedures do not apply, nor does the same expectation of respect on either side of the bench. The judges are expected to lose their tempers routinely, and the guests are expected to provoke them. Didn't she get the memo?
No, it's not.
Games shows are spinning a wheel or guessing survey responses or guessing the price of that vacuum or answering trivia about Orientalist Art for 1000 please, not getting yelled at by a lawyer in a robe and paying money for something dumb you did.
The point is the last part is wrong. Neither party pays. Each pair comes in with a $5k pot provided by the show. Any judgement is paid out and then the rest is split.
I've seen a number of cases that looked contrived just so the people could get a quick $2500 then go on being friends.
In response to gentleman who asked if I was advocating that people should be rude in court. (See post at http://volokh.com/posts/1237854052.shtml#552554), I respond that I have already pointed out (http://volokh.com/posts/1237854052.shtml#552507) that this is not a court and she is not a judge. It is a game show and she is the host. If this causes her embarrassment, maybe she should have asked for more money or refused the job entirely.
I don't think I would have volunteered if I were the 2L. Going on court tv a year before you come before the bar to get permission to practice law can only end badly. Anyone know what happened to him?
Now, in chambers, with no reporter or public, feel free to be as much of a jackass as you want. That's what I do, and despite threats and insults from the judge in chambers, they never do anything because I'm ridiculously polite and reverential in session.
"This food is bad."
"That's your opinion."
"Yes, and mine is the opinion that matters, so..."
Based on that I would then say she deserves the same respect as any other judge. I will not comment on how much respect that ought to be. : )
And then the editors will just cut that part out before airing. You don't think JJ has ever been 'told' inside her own fake courtroom? You aren't just watching fake 'justice', you are watching fake justice with everuything but the fluff edited out.
Her point was that when someone has the power to make a decision about something you want, you should treat them with respect. That seems like a real point to me.
I won't waste my time watching the clip, but here's a secret: these shows are meant to be entertainment. The judge will go over the top on people and hand out a smack-down because that gets ratings. If watching small-claims court was really all that entertaining by itself, they'd be trying to market that instead.
So why would a real judge bother to become a TV judge? Here's a few reasons: (1) you make a lot more money, (2) you can be as crazy as you want to be and all that matters are the ratings, (3) no more criminal docket, (4) the docket is only as long as you want it to be, (5) your decisions will never be overturned, (6) you become a celebrity, (7) you don't have to deal with know-it-all lawyers anymore, (8) you get to admit lie-detector results into evidence.
Besides, I have seen TV judges apply actual law. In one case I saw the judge actually take a break so she could review California statutes regarding the use of a leash on dogs. So I don't think TV judges throw the law out the window and do whatever they want. In part, I think TV judges like to think that their show teaches viewers about the rudiments of contract and tort law, along with the crucial lesson that credibility is the most important asset at trial. You can be absolutely in the right and still lose because nobody believes a word out of your fool mouth.
Kim Jong-il has the power to make a decision about peace on the Korean peninsula.
Should Kim Jong-il be treated with respect?
One might even venture the suggestion that no one should act like an asshole, anywhere.
(Except in blog comments, of course.)
Only if you don't want to die.
In a well-known State of the Union address, Mr Bush, the then-president, characterized the DPRK as a part of his infamous “axis of evil”. That characterization was not respectful towards Kim Jong-il.
Yet, Mr “Logic Checker”, it's evident that Mr Bush remains among the living. Furthermore, as Mr Bush made his disrespectful remarks acting in his official capacity as head of state, it's worth noting that the United States has not died.
Civility is even more important in adversarial settings - if the parties are interested in a resolution and that 2L did behave like a jerk.
Having said that, suppose the law is clearly on my side, should I expect the judge could rule against me unless I am appropriately deferential?
This is where the show putting up the money comes in, I think. Because the show puts up the money the judge is free to make any ruling whatsoever and the participants are made at least somewhat whole by the the pot splitting. Other than, I suppose, the extremely rare case of a successful counterclaim that shouldn't have worked.
Actually, that's one area where their algorithm falls a little short I think. There is always more upside for a party making a claim than for one who makes no claim. Milian may be contientious about following the law but others in the genre are not nearly so concerned with formalities.
I suppose you should consider whether you want to take chances. I think a good judge will always rule on the merits, but you aren't guaranteed to have a good judge.
A lack of deference may not bite you in the instant case, but judges talk to each other. If word gets around that you are a cuss of a lawyer, you will find all the judges giving you less and less leeway, or none at all.
Then your example is a bad analogy since it has nothing to do with showing contempt for someone who is sitting in judgment of you. Also, my comment was a joke. Get a sense of humor.
It's kind of sad that she doesn't get the joke.
And what's with this "female minority" thing? Her parents may have been born in Cuba, but she's as white as David Duke.
Just because the judge has the power to lock one up for contempt does not make the judge correct nor does it make the judge "respectable". Although one should "respect" the office of judge, the attitude and behavior of many, many members of the judicial branch have destroyed any need or desire to grant respect. FEAR of the judge and the judge's ability to punish is not respect. In resorting to force(punishment for contempt), the judge behaves in a manner no different from the worst criminal/gang member.
I would like to see every judge put in his/her place by requiring every judge to read Blackstone
and having a placard placed in every courtroom that states:
"The People Court Room #### - Judge So-and-So, Caretaker"
We the People are in charge. We the People are superior to the judiciary. Judges SERVE us. We the People do not serve the judges.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.