She gets so upset when people call her miss or ma'am instead of judge. She used to laugh it off when people would accidentally call her sir because she understood. Now she ONLY wants to be called judge and acts like it's the biggest disservice to call her ms. Besides that, she's been way more pissy. I used to love her and the show but her attitude ruined it.
shareShe gets so upset when people call her miss or ma'am instead of judge.
That annoyed me too. The plaintiff called her "Miss." It seemed to me that when the judge questioned this, the plaintiff corrected herself to "Mrs." thinking that the mistake she made wan't that she had insulted a judge, but that she had mistaken a married woman for single.
Then the judge, believing this was sexist, asks, "What would you call me if I were a man?"
This clearly confused the plaintiff, who answered "Mister" which was correct from her own perspective (After all, the male equivalent of "Mrs." is "Mister") but it got in the way of the judge trying to paint her as sexist. So the judge says, "No! You would not call a man 'Mister'!" The plaintiff then offered, "Judge?" Then the judge says (paraphrased), "That's right. If I was a man, you'd call me judge."
There was just no "meeting of the minds" in this little transaction. MM acted more like a prosecutor than a judge, and it threw the plaintiff off guard.
Not that the plaintiff wasn't horrible or didn't deserve to lose her case AND the countersuit, but that 20 seconds was very awkward and unprofessional on MM's part.
She has good days and bad days. That was a bad day.
I had a different take on it. Her "Miss" was condescending -- the same way someone might mockingly call a clerk in a department store "Miss" when they're there to complain about terrible service you received. That was my take the time, especially considering the attitude and eye-rolling at the Judge by the plaintiff.
-----
Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
I had a different take on it. Her "Miss" was condescending.....
Yes, you're quite right. This is another of my pet peeves.
I have a slightly different recollection.
I agree that she has "laughed it off" more recently. But in earlier seasons, she wouldn't let a "Ma'am" go by without jumping on the litigant.
I actually wondered if she thought about this bad habit, or someone else discussed it with her, and she deliberately decided to chill out.
The fact that this particular litigant was difficult and unsympathetic doesn't justify Milian's little tantrum.
Judges, even TV judges, are supposed to be "the bigger person", especially in small-claims courts. Litigants are presumed to be unfamiliar with standard court protocol.
It's one thing if a litigant becomes unruly or abusive; that's "contempt of court". But when a litigant is trying to be polite, there's no excuse to lash out with self-righteous annoyance.
Worst of all, Milian has no compunction about calling litigants "Pal", "Sweetheart", etc. No, it's not a judge's prerogative. Respect is a two-way street. Her rank hypocrisy in this area is not becoming.
FWIW, I don't find her to be cranky and nasty all of the time; she's often more relaxed and good-humored.
But she does have her "off" moments, and arrogantly busting on litigants who don't get her title right is one of them.
• Judges, even TV judges, are supposed to be "the bigger person", especially in small-claims courts.
• Worst of all, Milian has no compunction about calling litigants "Pal", "Sweetheart", etc. No, it's not a judge's prerogative.
I wouldn't try to tell Judge Judy anything; she's a paragon of self-righteous hubris.
But I entirely agree with your point!
Judge Judy personified a pop culture attitude shift in court TV shows.
Judge Joseph Wapner was a true old-school model of judicial deportment. His mission in the original People's Court was primarily educational, stuffy as that sounds; he sought to familiarize a general audience with the practical, day-to-day application of legal principles in a small-claims court context.
TV being TV, naturally this was "greenlighted" on the grounds that it would also be entertaining. But it had only a smidgen of the low-life (melo)drama that saturates daytime TV.
Judge Wapner tended to be uniformly civil, benevolently paternalistic, and even scholarly at times. He conscientiously stopped to explain principles like "bailment for hire", etc. Naturally, over time this became boring for less intelligent viewers.
Judge Judy, on the other hand, is all about exercising, i.e. indulging, "tough-love" authoritarian "attitude". She's no humble servant of the law like Wapner.
You may remember that she was first seen nationally on a "60 Minutes" interview with an adoring Morely Safer that showcased these qualities. Predictably, to use a Judge Milian idiom, TV producers rushed to bottle her and sell her.
Without getting too deeply into the political ramifications, JJ floated to her plateau atop an updraft of reactionary "law and order" cravings. Unlike Judge Wapner, Judge Judy isn't unduly concerned with legal technicalities and principles. She's more of a "Dirty Harry"-type judge; she cites legal principles only insofar as they give-- well, the color of law-- to her "tough love" assessments.
Judge Judy is indeed reprehensively rude and overbearing-- the stern parent who freely displays contempt toward ignorant, "irresponsible" litigants.
She's the antithesis of the Wapner-class judge, and I use "class" in all its aspects. "Judge Judy" is a show about a pompous "no-nonsense" Star presiding over a Star Chamber.
In short, she's an abomination. Sadly, like many narcissistic tyrants, this impresses a complacent and submissive audience. Her success says a lot about the deteriorating appreciation for civility.
I agree with your every word about Judy.
But, you can't say that on her board, or her fan-boys will come after you with pitchforks and torches -- as if you were the monster in an old "Universal" movie!
They eat up her crap -- and beg for more!
It's short. Watch the whole thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CJf2AyJmGU
[deleted]
The thing is it wasn't just that vacation episode. There was another episode, I think the season premiere where a different, nice litigant called her ms and milian got upset and self righteous. I thought that was a one time thing but then it happened again so soon
shareI can't be bothered looking up the exact airdate or show title, but this week Milian was also nasty and cranky to the litigant who was suing the company that installed her granite countertops.
I started to write "unusually" or "exceptionally" nasty and cranky-- but sadly, it's not as unusual as it used to be.
I don't really want to rehash the whole case, but the plaintiff claimed that the installer never advised her that the countertops needed to be sealed to protect them from discoloration.
When the plaintiff discovered that the countertop had become discolored, she contacted the installer and found out that the fact that the countertops hadn't been sealed and re-sealed meant they were permanently ruined.
I'm not necessarly arguing that the plaintiff should've won. But it was one of those cases where Milian's sympathies were with the defendant/contractor. During the crucial "home stretch", she just started to snap at the plaintiff as if she (Milian) were fed up and just wanted to rule against her and get it over with.
In short, like the lesser TV court judges, she just gave the plaintiff the bum's rush. I find it particularly outrageous when any judge starts to bully, fluster, and intimidate a litigant in a way that cuts the litigant off at the knees instead of giving them a fair hearing.
It really comes across as a "mood swing" thing. Lately, there are times when she just looks cranky or impatient-- you can see it in her eyes.
I hate to say it, but despite their sexist connotations, when the judge is "off" like this I think: "b**chy"... and "menopause".
Lmao I didn't want to say it either, as a female I think it's rude and dismissive. But I'm really wondering if she was pms'ing or going through the change. Family problems, marriage problems? Whatever it is, if this is reoccurring or going to be permanent, I'm no longer a watcher
shareThanks for recognizing that I wasn't being rude and dismissive, or at least that I was trying not to be.
Actually, I was tempted to repeat myself. Please check out the almost-identical discussion on the "Did anyone notice..." thread; here's a link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123357/board/flat/258684326
BTW, I suddenly thought of a word to describe Judge Milian's "off" demeanor that isn't used much any more in the US, but may still be common in the UK: cross.
It's one thing if a litigant is so annoying or offensive during the course of the hearing that pretty much everybody, including the judge, becomes so sick of their, er, crap that they are unable or unwilling to hide it.
But in the cases we're talking about, Milian gets that "cross" expression early on. And, whatever is causing this noticeable attitude, the worst part is that she seems to mostly focus her negativity on one side.
I probably wouldn't keep watching if she were unduly "cross" with both parties, so I'm not suggesting that would improve matters. But it's irksome to me to watch any judge demonstrating partiality; to me, that's putting a big fat thumb on the scales of justice.