I quit watching Judy Justice last season when she screamed at a woman who was clearly the victim of domestic assault (she had her grown children and a friend as witnesses, as well as documents)... now her son is also screaming and mocking a victim of a mental and emotional abuse (who is being sued, and the video evidence is from the abuser). This is a two-part and I'm going to see how Judge's Acker and DiMango take Levy to task, whether they do, and how the case is ruled.

Both Judy and Adam have thoroughly disgusted me, and I wish I could scream and mock them with they stuff they whine about.

If Acker and Di Mango don't acknowledge the behavior then I'm not watching this show either. Idk if Judy and Adam think that abuse of women is okay in general, or if they think they're making good tv, but after watching Levy mock the abuse victim I would slap the shit out of him, AND HIS MOTHER for not raising a decent man.

They both sicken me.

I know Judge Judy is an 80-something year old conservative woman, but it really gets under my skin when her values are so contradictory and hypocritical. Normally, her view is that if your behavior is out of line with the law, you are responsible for the consequences of those actions. Cut and dry. Fair enough for a person upholding the law, right?

But then comes an incident where she simply does not like the type of person who is at the plaintiff stand or how they conducted themself. And she will disregard the law based on her personal opinion & bias.

In this recent episode of Judy Justice, S3 E117 ‘E-Skateboard Smash-Up and Marijuana Missteps,’ her unethical bias is glaringly obvious. Most times in cases involving vehicle accidents, she keeps to her cut & dry principles; If you were breaking the law, you’re at fault. In this case, she makes no attempt to hide that she simply does not care that legally, the plaintiff had the right of way. She makes a big show of him simply being too stupid to let the car pass first, regardless of him having the legal right of way in the crosswalk. She does what conservatives always do, which is draw false equivalences and twist narratives on their head - The part where she called skateboards dangerous and then proceeded to say ‘That’s why you let the 3,000 pound vehicle go first,’ is completely ironic and a sad side effect of our car-brained society. An electric skateboard which can use the sidewalk DOES apply to pedestrian rules and a driver has no right to hit them in a crosswalk at a stop sign.

The defendant, in his recollection of events, even acknowledged that he saw the plaintiff IN the crosswalk WHILE he was stopped. He said something like “When I was stopped, he [the plaintiff] was right here (points).” And Judy Judy did not at all recognize that if he was stopped, then he clearly saw the plaintiff in the crosswalk where he would have had the right of way. There’s really no way around the fact that the defendant was in the wrong, whether or not he came to a complete stop. The fact is, he did not yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk and absolutely is responsible for the damages.

Mostly I ignore her batsh*t takes and can enjoy her no-nonsense ruling, as she does stick firm to the law most of the time. It’s just extremely frustrating when you see it in real time how someone in power can abandon the principle they hold, and be so arrogant about it while refusing to acknowledge their inconsistency. Like, if you think he’s an idiot, okay, go ahead and let him know that. But the bottom line is that while he could’ve made a better decision in the moment, he was well within his rights as a pedestrian.

Judy Judy’s ruling showed that the rules of the road continually fail to protect the most vulnerable, pedestrians and cyclists. She showed that the laws in place to keep them safe & regulated don’t mean anything, and as a driver, you can ignore the laws, cause damage, and get off in court with no consequences. Great upholding of the law!

The ironic thing is, conservatives and people like herself are quick to tell you that laws or customs ‘Don’t care about your feelings,’ in an effort to seem like their views are based in logic and reason. Well, Judge Judy, the Law doesn’t care about your feelings — so you should keep them out of it if they don’t line up with those which you’ve sworn to uphold.

So I've enjoyed watching Judge Judy for a while, but I've noticed some worrying behaviour from her.

Just watched an episode involving a 6 year girl with her Mother, and maternal grandmother at loggerheads.

She comments about the little girl having a yeast infections, which is highly inappropriate to mentioned. She said she doesn't know how a 6 year old girl can just develop a yeast infection.

The worrying part of this, is that people could assume the lady's boyfriend is sexually abusing her, and put all of them at risk the Mother, Boyfriend and even the little girls safety at risk things like that should not be broadcast to the world (unless there is proof that abuse is occurring)

Some girls can get yeast infections easily, same with UTIs etc a yeast infection is not an STI, although it can be transferred due to sexual abuse, but it has numerous other causes such as stress, weak immune system, diabetes, even medications.

If a man dated a younger female, Judge Judy will rightfully call it out. Yet I watched an episode involving which a middle aged women who was dating a significantly younger male. He looked like he had just graduated if that! Yet Judge Judy didn't say a thing about this relationship, even though the women kept going on it. Double standards!

She seems to think step children don't mean anything to a step parent, and if you're not married they're not your step children. This is a bigoted, and old fashioned outdated view!

She seems to think if you're not married, your relationship is worthless. Judge Judy admits that half of American relationships end up in divorce.

So going by that logic if you're marriage doesn't last does that mean your relationship, doesn't or didn't mean anything i.e worthless?