So many people are not fit to serve -- especially on the bench. And if corruption on the US courts doesn't concern you, competency should. America needs serious court reforms.
One of the first on the list of reforms? An end of lifetime appointments.
This point was made very well last September. As ABC NEWS reported:
Judge Pauline Newman, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 39 years, was suspended Wednesday after Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore determined she was no longer able to perform her job, according to court documents.
"Unfortunately, earlier this year mounting evidence raised increasing doubts about whether Judge [Pauline] Newman is still fit to perform the duties of her office. When such evidence is brought to the attention of the Chief Judge and the Judicial Council, there is an obligation to investigate the matter," the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit wrote in a court order Wednesday.
"The evidence establishes reasonable concerns that Judge Newman suffers from a disability preventing her from effectively discharging the duties of her office," the council wrote in a court order.
Sadly, removing Pauline Newman from the bench did not fix the problem -- that's why judicial reform is needed -- and there are so many others who continue to rule who have also passed their 'best used by' date.
That's made clear regularly on FREEVEE formerly IMDB TV and who knows what it will be called next?
Yes, we are speaking of Judith Sheindlin. A New York attorney since 1965, she became a family court prosecutor in 1972. Ten years later, then-NYC mayor Ed Koch made her a criminal-court judge.
Following a best selling book of nonsense (DON'T PEE ON MY LEG AND TELL ME THAT IT'S RAINING) and one of those puff pieces 60 MINUTES had become famous for in the 90s, Judith left the real courts to make her mark on the TV with the syndicated program JUDGE JUDY.
A crabby, nasty woman yelling at people, she was a pioneer of 'reality' TV. And the creators of her show (whom she at one time got along with -- or at least tolerated) scoured the country for village idiots and the inbred that would allow the 'judge' to come off especially superior.
Which is how you ended with a teenage girl declaring of her abusive mother (season one, episode seven), "She slapped me but she never fisted me." The audience always enjoyed those kind of moments -- where the person appearing before the court was so stupid that they didn't realize what they were saying.
For 25 years, Judith stayed with the show. Each year, her greed -- like her fame -- increased.
She was making $47 million a year for taping JUDGE JUDY and her announcement that she'd be leaving the show should have carried the following phrase "to enjoy my retirement." However, her greed could not be fed, not even with $47 million a year. So instead the announcement came with information that she would be making a new show. JUDGE JUDY aired its last new episode in July of 2021. Months later, November of 2021, JUDY JUSTICE began streaming on AMAZON.
JUDY JUSTICE found the maximum amount to be awarded raised to $10,000 from $5,000. And, like JUDGE JUDY before it, JUDY JUSTICE is also a bit of a game show since that money is 'won' and not 'paid.' Any money awarded on the show is paid out of the show's budget -- like a game show. The loser in court does not actually pay any money awarded by Judith. In addition to that money, the competitors are (and were, in the case of JUDGE JUDY) also paid for appearing on the show and have their travel and lodging costs taken care of as well.
Other things changed as well. As noted back in January 2022's "IN THESE TIMES tries TV criticism and fails again (Ty, Ava and C.I.):"
I was honestly surprised, when we just read over the review, that Nair didn't comment on the most obvious point: JUSTICE JUDY steals from PEOPLE'S COURT. Marilyn Milian is the judge on that program. After the case, she is in her chambers with her husband John Schlesinger -- who was also once a judge, federal level like Marilyn -- and they discuss the case. Judy never did that on JUDGE JUDY. She does it now on JUSTICE JUDY with her granddaughter Sarah Rose Levy.
We'll come back. to Sarah Rose. Whitney Kumar is often called upon to read while the case is in progress. JUDGE JUDY did not feature a stenographer but JUDY JUSTICE does. In addition, there's the bailiff and it's not Byrd as it was on JUDGE JUDY (Petri Hawkins-Byrd), it's Kevin Rasco.
We didn't rush to weigh in on the show -- the piece with Ty was initiated by Ty -- because Judith was a known quantity. The only real twist was Sarah Rose who isn't as cranky as her grandmother -- give her time, just give her time and her judgmental attitude will lead straight down the same path -- and sometimes disagrees with Judith -- such as on the issue of attempting to slut shame a woman over a private photo. Sarah wasn't as shocked by someone doing a nude photo for a romantic partner. But Sarah did save that for when she and her granddmother spoke after the ruling, in the judge's chamber. All their disagreements wait for the chambers as Sarah Rose tries to educate the pre-Baby Boomer (born in 1942 -- six years before the start of the Baby Boom) on such things as the 21st century, technology and how the horse and carriage was long phased out (just kidding on that last one).
246 episodes now compose JUDY JUSTICE and, in May, it was announced that the show was renewed for two more seasons. It shouldn't have been and that's the hook that led to this piece.
She has made season two all about how she is not competent to rule on anything anymore.
This was most obvious in season two's episode 57.
Judith didn't even understand the case. Sadly, Sarah Rose was equally stupid.
What's worse, Judith made fun of the plaintiff and of artists in general who just can't understand legalities. She and Sarah Rose laughed that one up but they're the idiots who didn't understand the legal issues.
"Hijacked Harmony" -- the episode title -- revolved around two men. One wrote lyrics. He called it a "song." He went to the man suing to get a transcript of the 'song.' Judith, the judge, couldn't grasp what was being presented by Charles Kerper. She said he was paid for transcribing the song. He explained that he deserved half the credit and profits for the song for his work. He explained he'd written it.
Dumb Judy thought he meant in transcribing the song, he wrote down the music that Tennessee Luke (the defendant) wrote. No, that's not what he was saying.
He actually wrote the music, came up with the music. He had been hired to transcribe a song. But there was no song, there were only lyrics.
"We Are The World" is the subject of a soon to stream NETFLIX documentary (THE GREATEST NIGHT IN POP debuts January 29th). The song was written by Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie. Any song Michael wrote, the music had to be transcribed -- which some would call wrongly "written." Michael wrote his own music. He could not transcribe it. So he would hum it -- usually into his tape recorder -- and he would pay for it to be transcribed. What Charles Kerper was arguing before so-called Judge Judy was that he was paid to transcribe a song and he would have transcribed it (written it down on paper) but there was no music. He had to write the music.
Legally, that did make him entitled to co-writing and to part of the publishing. Nothing in the contract that Judith recognized as valid was about his co-writing the song -- meaning actually composing the music.
"It's always a risk as a lay person is to write a contract yourself," a grinning Sarah Rose said in the judge's chambers after yucking it up with grandma.
"They're music people, they're artists," a holier-than-thou Judith declared snickering at the thought."
Sarah Rose would agree and offer, "Language and specifics and details is more our forte as lawyers,"
Except it wasn't, you smug jerks who made a ruling that was a miscarriage of justice.
The plaintiff wasn't well spoken; however, he was repeatedly interrupted and even with what he did get to say, it was clear that "writing" was being used by him to describe composing music (he even says that at one point and also that had to rewrite some of the lyrics).
He took payment for transcription.
The defendant did not, however, give the plaintiff money for his work co-writing the song.
What happens when there is no contract between two songwriters?
No contract means that the law recognizes them both as co-owners of the song. That was what the case was about. But that was too much for Judith and her lackey to grasp.
Not only did Charles Kerper actually own half the song, but the song, as Tennessee Luke admitted, was being performed in a club act and on television.
Do the smug assholes grasp concepts like "performance royalties"?
Songwriters earn those royalties from performances of their songs.
Judith ruled incorrectly. She cost the man money. She did legal harm to the plaintiff. She then went on to mock him with her niece.
Now some might argue this has nothing to do with age.
And that may be.
YOUTUBER Calvin Michaels isn't elderly and he's a misinformed idiot.
He took to YOUTUBE yesterday to defend Taraji P. Henson and her publicity tour of greed.
Stan has documented Taraji's Tour of Greed repeatedly at his site ("Tara P. Henson is Box Office Poison," "THE BEEKEEPER, MEAN GIRLS, trashy Taraji, talented Diana Ross," "Taraji destroys THE COLOR PURPLE at the box office," "Ghetto Trash Taraji P. Henson strikes again," "Film box office," "What's souring THE COLOR PURPLE" and "Taraji competes with Jennifer Love to see who can ...").
Taraji has been complaining about many things when she should have been making people want to go see THE COLOR PURPLE. Among her complaints, she doesn't feel she was paid well for THE COLOR PURPLE. She has not gotten a raise since 2018's PROUD MARY.
Well, she actually should have seen a huge pay decrease because that film, and every live-action film she did after, flopped at the box office. In addition, she's now crashed a film with her mouthing. By all means address the issue of payment if you feel underpaid -- but do it after the film's stopped playing at the theater not when you're contractually bound to promote the film and build up enthusiasm around it.
This is not a shift at McDonalds, Taraji, 15 years behind the counter might get you an annual raise. That's not how the film industry works.
She is not a box office star. Studios wrongly thought she could be and then the ticket sales just weren't there. That means your price should be knocked down for any leading performances.
Since she's not whining that she didn't get less than she got in 2018, that means she was vastly overpaid for THE COLOR PURPLE -- if only because it was a supporting role and PROUD MARY had been a lead role.
But it's also reality, Calvin, that when you star in underperformers and flops, your per picture salary drops.
In 1979, Ryan O'Neal got one million dollars for co-starring in THE MAIN EVENT. Four flops in a row and by 1984, he's talking to the press about how he had to take a huge paycut when he agreed to star in IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES. (He did it for no salary, just points.) Taraji P. Henson was cast in THE COLOR PURPLE after five live-action flops in a row. And, again, it was a supporting role. She's also now too old to be a lead in most films. Character roles might await her in the future. If they do, someone should educate her that character actors and actresses do not generally earn in the millions per picture.
There is racism in the entertainment industry. And, yes, people of color can be underpaid and, wrongly, often are. Women, of all races, can be underpaid, as well. Meryl Streep nearly lost her career making the observation of how women were underpaid -- and roles weren't written for them -- in a press conference back in the nineties. And that's in part because of sexism but it's equally true that Meryl was always overpaid. She never delivered an audience on her own in her long, long career. 37 films that she starred in, in fact, wracked up less than $45 million in domestic ticket sales. So there was also a lack of gratitude as she whined in public. At the same time, Goldie Hawn by contrast, didn't whine that Arnold or whichever man was making ten million or more a movie. As an actual person living in the real world, she was aware that the millions she was paid for films were much more than most Americans were seeing at the time. And as an actual producer of film -- not just someone who took the title but actually did the work of producer as well -- she was aware that, as she told PEOPLE and many other outlets, that huge pay day comes with the demand that you have to deliver a huge audience and she could work without that huge pressure, thank you.
Calvin can't recognize that reality or pretty much any other. Which is why he goes to TV and only muddles things even more. He wants to argue that Taraji deserves more money because of the long-ago cancelled EMPIRE. He wants you to know that the first season set a record with each episode getting more viewers. All 18 episodes. Sorry, Calvin, math's not our strong suit either; however, we are able to count twelve which, for the record, is how many episodes were in season one.
He says that Taraji was making 150K an episode for EMPIRE. "If we compare that to FRIENDS, which by the time the show has started to wind down and the ratings have slowed down and people aren't as interested anymore, all of the six main cast mates were making anywhere between $874,000 and upwards of a million dollars per episode. Again, on a show that had ratings that were super high but again an American favorite on the prime night that they were on. Same story as EMPIRE."
Uh, no.
Are you that much of an idiot?
The cast of FRIENDS made a lot of money -- and that's because they stuck together and demanded the raises together beginning with season three. Pay attention, Calvin, that's called collective bargaining.
And where does he get that $800,000-plus figure? Season seven and eight saw the six cast members rise to $700,000 an episode while seasons nine and ten saw them jump to one million an episode.
Besides which, there's no comparison between the two shows. You're an idiot if you try to make a comparison.
DALLAS was a ratings hit. DYNASTY was a ratings hit. KNOTS LANDING, MELROSE PLACE and many more.
They were not hits in syndication.
Soap opera doesn't work well in syndication.
Doesn't draw a big audience and never has. And syndication is where the real money has always been made.
Sitcoms do -- at least sitcoms filmed before studio audiences do.
Then there's the fact that FRIENDS was a top ten hit for all ten seasons -- the number one watched show in season eight and the only time it wasn't top five in the ratings was the first season (when it was the 8th most watched program). By contrast, EMPIRE was never the number one watched show of any of its six seasons. Seasons one and two found it the fifth most watched show. Season three saw the series fall to number 23, season four it fell to number 52, season five it dropped to 68 and season six it was 82.
No, those aren't the numbers that FRIENDS posted. EMPIRE was a flash-in-the-pan show that should have been cancelled after season three. Once a top ten show falls out of the top twenty, it doesn't go back up ever again. The audience has elected to move on and they're not coming back. The series finale of EMPIRE was viewed by less than 3 million people, while the season finale of FRIENDS was viewed by over 52 million people.
Ratings is the main way the networks make money when broadcasting their programs. X amount of viewers helps determine how much they can charge for advertising. Some shows with smaller audiences can charge more because they bring in an 'upscale' audience (THIRTY-SOMETHING was never a ratings hit but ABC kept it on the air because it delivered a demographic that advertisers desperately wanted to reach).
If Taraji actually got $125,000 an episode for EMPIRE, she's not worth it today. She would have been worth it possibly in 2017 but having stayed with the sinking ship, she's demonstrated that only a few devoted fans will show up to watch her each week.
Calvin Michaels is nowhere near eighty. So it can be argued that Judith Sheindlin may not be going senile. But the worst Calvin can do is appall you as you grasp how little he actually knows. To appear before Judith, you have to sign an agreement that her decision is final and cannot be reviewed by any court. In other words, a man co-wrote a song and, with there being no contract between the two writers, the man has co-ownership of the song -- or had it, until a senile and smug idiot named Judith Sheindlin misunderstood the basic facts and took his legal ownership of a song away from him thereby depriving him of his legitimate credit and monies owed and leaving him with no legal recourse.
