Larry Lyttle has his finger on the pulse of the homebound and unemployed. He’s the guy who made ex-judge Jerry Sheindlin unbelievably rich, just by getting into the other side of the bed from his wife, Judy. That’s Judge Judy to you.
How do you not love Judge Judy? She’s got magic powers that enable her to know who’s right and wrong, truthful and lying, before anybody even says a word. She gives us pearls of legal wisdom that are never too long to fit comfortably inside a fortune cookie. And she earned $47 million, working only 52 days a year, making her the poster judge for work/life balance.
Don’t blame Larry. His job is to come up with great television, and great is defined by what people want to watch so that networks can sell advertising that will save us from restless legs syndrome and leaky pipes. He’s not required to make sure we get good law. And should he give me a call (operators are standing by, Larry), you can bet your ass I’ll answer the phone.
But if Judge Judy has found her way into the public’s heart, where Judge Wapner’s replacements have failed through their efforts to provide something remotely resembling law, why not take the faux court genre in a new, exciting direction? TMZ reports:
Sarah Palin … the next Judge Judy. That’s exactly the plan hatched by the guy who put Judy on TV.
Palin will be shooting a pilot for a TV courtroom show featuring her as the lady in black. It’s being produced by Larry Lyttle, who had an idea 20 years ago that the family court judge from NYC might be good TV.
Lyttle tells TMZ he’ll shoot a pilot with Palin in the next few months and then try to sell the show in syndication for launch in Sept., 2017.
It’s insane. And it’s brilliant. It’s the end of Palin’s career in politics, though that horse already left the barn. But if she only makes half of what Judge Judy does, she can afford as many moose guns as she wants. There is only one itty-bitty problem:
Small issue … Palin’s not a judge. Lyttle says not necessary, because she’ll preside over “the courtroom of common sense,” adding, “She’s appointed judges and is well equipped as a former governor to preside over cases.”
Palin isn’t a judge. Palin isn’t a lawyer. Palin isn’t, well, qualified in any respect. Appointing judges no more qualifies her to be a judge than eating foie gras qualifies someone to be a chef. It’s not Larry’s fault that his attempt to justify this great television coup is inane. He works with what he has, and anyway, loads of people will buy his spin.
But what about this “courtroom of common sense”?
Some might argue that this was tried and failed. After all, there was Judge Jeanine, the former Westchester County District Attorney whose husband, Al, went to prison, whose book was revealed as a sham, and whose extemporaneous legal utterances on the tube have revealed her to be an imbecile. You don’t get less law-ish and more common than Pirro. Well, maybe Nancy Grace, whose 30 seconds (it was, ironically called “Swift Justice”) as phony TV judge sucked the big one too.
There’s a difference this time. Palin will make no pretense of applying law. No one is going to claim she knows squat about law, or that law has anything to do with her show. They’ll put her in a black robe, which is slimming, stick her up on a bench made of balsa wood and let her loose. There’s nothing to go wrong, since there’s no expectation that she’ll get anything right.
Some may call this comedy gold. Some may contend that she better have a lawyer talking into her earplug feeding her a modicum of actual law. Neither is likely to be the case. America loves common sense. Me, not so much, but then, I’m not a likely fan anyway as I don’t live in Shondaland.
And before you get all nasty and snarky, making fun of the concept of Sarah Palin playing judge on TV, bear in mind that Larry Lyttle is no fool. While some of use try our darndest to not make people stupider, it’s not like anybody has offered to give us a column in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, or put us on TV, even cable, or talk radio, to provide a counter-voice to the court of common sense.
Knowledge is hard work. Thinking causes headaches. It’s just not fun, even if we can be just as curmudgeonly as Judge Judy. There’s no money to be made in trying to make people more knowledgeable about the law. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig, right Sarah?
When I first watched Sarah Palin in the vice-presidential debate, as running mate for John McCain, I was shocked when I thought she had an eye tick. I turned to Dr. SJ and said, “look, look, did you see that? Did you see her eye twitch?” Dr. SJ calmly looked at me and said, “you moron, that wasn’t a tick. She winked.”
She winked? Maybe she knows more about law than anyone realizes. Maybe Larry Lyttle knows more about us than anyone realizes. Maybe guys like me are the ones who don’t get it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This isn’t entirely unprecedented. There have been other shows presided over by non-judges that are supposed to be based more on what “feels right” and “common sense.” Two I can think of of are Eye for an Eye and Moral Court, presided over, respectively, by “Judge” Extreme Akim (completely serious), and Larry Elder, the conservative activist/talk show host. Although, to be fair, both of those “judges” went to law school.
In other news, I used to watch way too much daytime TV.
That you know this disqualifies you from further human contact. Govern yourself accordingly.
Could it be that the legal profession is a union shop and you don’t like non-union workers competing for jobs?
No.
Given the political circus, perhaps this is all a lead-in to Ms. Palin’s appointment to the Supreme Court (which, of course, requires no law license). 🙂
More seriously, however, it’s possible that not all judging requires a lawyer. When I was a baby lawyer with a new job out in the Badlands of New Mexico, I was vaguely appalled to learn that I’d be spending some of my time in front of locally elected, non-lawyer magistrates. While there are always some outliers, I came to find their decisions (on the whole) were no worse than those of “regular” judges at that level. A friend of mine pointed out, “There’s a place for having a well respected member of the community decide dog bark cases and such.” Years later I got to know a non-lawyer magistrate whom I’d count as one of the best judges I ever saw practice at that level, so I think my friend’s position is somewhat more patronizing than that which I’d now voice.
Getting back to the subject of Judge (Justice?) Palin, I’d note Frank Zappa’s quote that, “Politics is the entertainment branch of industry.” Whatever sells the product . . . thanks for another fun post!
We have non-lawyer justices in local courts as well. They’re great, except for all the bad shit.
Given that most of the “judge shows” have a pool of money from which both parties are paid an appearance fee, I’m less worried about one party getting a bad shake. They’ll both earn some $ and get their 15 minutes of fame. As for the audience getting stupider about the law (or anything else) – do you really think that’s possible? Exhibit 1 would be some of the readers’ comments found in your link about non-lawyer local judges in NY. Ughh!
Wait. Are you calling my readers’ comment stupid?
None of those shows do much to provide any insight into law, but things could always get worse. Not that I’m a pessimist, or anything.
Knowledge is hard work. Thinking causes headaches. It’s just not fun, even if we can be just as curmudgeonly as Judge Judy
Aha! So, it’s really just jealousy.
And don’t you ever fucking criticize Nancey Grace. She was certain Joran Vandersloot was guilty. Next thing I know he’s choking some girl to death in Peru.
Oh, ok, there was the Michael Jackson thing. but he was probably guilty , and certainly with some other kid if not this one.
You can’t be right all the time.
Dr SJ should DVR Sarah’s show and replicate it so it’s the only thing on any of your TV’s. If not, we’ll give the job to your son. It’s honest , legal work.
If I was really jealous, I would have pointed out that I’m more curmudgeonly than Judge Judy. But I’m also modest.
I bet Judge Kopf would be awesome. But it would need to be cable, because, you know, language.
Are you suggesting that Judge Kopf is indecently profane?
Indecently profane is not the phrase I would use. I’d use colorful.
Seriously, if he is as telegenic on camera as he is colorful at the keyboard, it would be a show I would actually watch (and I don’t watch anything regularly).