Judge Judy Wants Cameras In The Supreme Court
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 05. 2016
- Judge Judy knows when people are lying to her because she can see them, so why shouldn't we all be able to see what goes on in every courtroom?
"Subscribe To ""The Late Show"" Channel HERE: bit.ly/ColbertCZcams
For more content from ""The Late Show with Stephen Colbert"", click HERE: bit.ly/1AKISnR
Watch full episodes of ""The Late Show"" HERE: bit.ly/1Puei40
Download the Colbert App HERE: apple.co/1Qqgwk4
Like ""The Late Show"" on Facebook HERE: on. 1df139Y
Follow ""The Late Show"" on Twitter HERE: bit.ly/1dMzZzG
Follow ""The Late Show"" on Google+ HERE: bit.ly/1JlGgzw
Watch The Late Show with Stephen Colbert weeknights at 11:35 PM ET/10:35 PM CT. Only on CBS.
Get the CBS app for iPhone & iPad! Click HERE: bit.ly/12rLxge
Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next day, stream live TV, and watch full seasons of CBS fan favorites anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try it free! bit.ly/1OQA29B
---
Stephen Colbert took over as host of The Late Show on Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2015. Colbert is best known for his work as a television host, writer, actor, and producer, and best known for his charity work teaching English as a second language on Tunisian date farms. Prior to joining the CBS family -- and being officially adopted by network president Les Moonves -- Colbert helmed “The Colbert Report,” which aired nearly 1,500 episodes and required Stephen to wear nearly 1,500 different neckties. The program received two Peabody Awards, two Grammy Awards, and several unwelcome shoulder massages. It won two Emmys for Outstanding Variety Series in 2013 and 2014, both of which appear to have been lost in the move. Colbert is pronounced koʊlˈbɛər, according to Wikipedia. His understudy is William Cavanaugh, who will be hosting The Late Show approximately one third of the time. Good luck, Bill!" - Zábava
"Oh, I forgot. I have food in my refrigerator older than you are." SAVAGE!!!
+Crick1952 fucking judge fucking judy just tearing it up in the court room and in the bed room ;)
hahaha!!!! xD
+Crick1952 shots fired!
That woman is brutal, and I love it
TOO CUTE!
I love this woman. She tells it like it is. I hope we got more people like her in our government.
+Patrick Chan Not a single person on this planet "tells it like it is" unless you are talking about math. That is the only topic where you can be totally objective most of the time. On any other topic you get a very subjective and personal view.
Patrick Chan she's a new Yorker. we tend to speak our minds. alot of people mainly snowflakes don't like that Trump's another one speaks his mind that why and how he got elected.
Hans Tun or anything factual. It doesn’t have to be numbers 😂
Shes a tough, intelligent woman. Love Judge Judy!
For sure but we can't forget about Ofc. Byrd!
She was referring to the Nixon/JFK debate for anyone wondering.
+mariokarter13 Stephen is wondering
+Taylor Hansen the food in her fridge isn't
+mariokarter13 thanks..I was wondering about what happen in the debate of the 1960s..
God bless this woman
And God bless America 🇺🇸
Trump 2016. His new slogan is "You literally have no other choice!"
+Daniel “A Smol Meme w Big Dreams” the Spaniel nah.
Give that woman a small loan of a million dollars!
small loan of a million cameras
What's even worse is that a million dollars back in the late 60s early 70s was the equivalent of around $7million in today's money so he really got a "small loan of close to $7million"
Brandon Holt wow... I guess...
Judge Judy is worth like 500 million dollars yo. She should be giving us a million dollar loan.
I think using physical symptoms to judge people would be a terrible idea, for all the reasons why measuring heart rate is a bad idea to detect lies.
+Jacob Bielski Except that a large part of communication is through eye contact, body language, pheromones, et cetera.
Exactly, and I think the transcripts and audio tapes are sufficient. The USSC justices will make a good decision, because they can see how the person is. I trust that Presidents have appointed justices that can make a good judgement, based on empirical evidence and the fact that they can see the person (that's the necessary thing, that the decision makers are the ones seeing the person...it's not necessary for the general public to see the trial, because they can't influence the decision)....and also, it would be useless because you can't appeal a USSC decision.
Exactly, and I think the transcripts and audio tapes are sufficient. The USSC justices will make a good decision, because they can see how strong the solicitor general's argument is. I trust that Presidents have appointed justices that can make a good judgement, based on empirical evidence presented by the solicitor general. (that's the necessary thing, that the decision makers are the ones are hearing the solicitor general and defense...it's not necessary for the general public to see the trial, because they can't influence the decision)....and also, it would be useless because you can't appeal a USSC decision.
+Harsimran Bhatti
The USSC justices see "the person"? What person? The only people who appear at the Supreme court are lawyers. No person is "on trial". No person is the accused. The only decision to be made is the constitutionality of a law. A law is deemed to be constitutional, or it is overturned. The attorneys argue only as to the constitutional standing of some statute. Not a lot of opportunity for subterfuge there.
Silkendrum Exactly the person, I was referring to, was the solicitor general. I understand that the USSC only determines if a law is deemed constitutional or unconstitutional. The furthest court with a person actually on trial would be a federal district court, so you're completely right but my wording was off. I couldn't get solicitor general out of my head so I used "the person". Thanks for commenting though, I went back and changed my previous comment and corrected it.
I'd be screwed..I turn red just ordering food at a restaurant
+paige lass Same, also if someone asks something and there's a potential embarrassing answer (even if that answer wouldn't be the case for me)... Ah, the life of easily blushing is not an easy life.
Judge Judy needs to be on our Supreme Court!
she literally is an idiot
She isn't even a real judge and her show is corrupt as fuck.
+Mavila You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Mavila something is wrong with you. I see your hateful comments everywhere
I'd hate to be eating out of her fridge. Colbert is 51 years old.
+paradoxdesigns "I'd hate to be eating out of her fridge" you just gave me a whole mental image I'd rather not have
+sadasdas - You were thinking about her salty vinegary sugar walls? Heaven on earth inside her sugar walls
You're wrong. He's 52!!!!
The hell with you she's a great judge
LOL The end was great!
I agree, we need The Supreme Court and all of our courts in the judicial branch of our government be open to both the media and the social media.
I love Judge Judy. Smart woman.
+Matthew Roach I'm a big fan too.
Judge Judy is a national treasure
Great idea!!
"I have food in my refrigerator older than you are." Hahaha! Judge Judy is one amazing woman. That line had me rolling!
judging by body language only works if the person exhibits typical body language. if somebody with a neurological atypicallity is testifying, and their brain dictates body language differently, if at all, then judging by said body language opens the possibility for mistakes or incorrect assumptions.
+Tristen Huffman
She also assumes that people who appear before her always do things that are sensible or logical. Many times I've heard her say, "That's not possible! No one would do that!" and I stopped watching her because I got tired of screaming at the TV, "Yes they do! People are nuts!"
Exactly, and this is one of the reasons why I never liked her. I don't have as much faith in her hunches as she does, and I wouldn't trust anything of importance to her judgment.
I feel like while her show is oversensationalized (it is TV), I rather like her show and her character. My parents and I used to watch her show at dinner, discussing the cases and law and whatnot. It was good times.
good times!
Honestly I learned some good stuff about my rights AND limitation per the law.
her argument is also the argument for why there aren't cameras in the supreme court. the people should only see the sc as the law rather than as the justices. the judiciary wants the constitution to be the judge and not opinions of those in the black robe.
i agree but cameras would allow us to know if the literal law was used correctly. cameras have plenty of use other than body language
+Connor Smith I believe thats the purpose of appeals.
+Mark Cho That's what the judiciary wants people to believe by not showing what goes on in the court rooms.
Connor Smith sqlexp dude i wasn't giving my opinion...just stating an argument. Ofc i know that there is bias in a system that's supposed to be bipartisan. There are plenty of cases where it was a 5/4 split vote. However, it's crucial that the judiciary keeps an "unbias" image for the sake of their reputation and their role in the government. I would, also, love to see what goes on in the court rooms out of, pure, curiosity. But that won't do much in terms of the courts effectiveness. Once a case is settled, it's settled. The SC is more about defining the broad design of "the constitution" rather than judgement for and against "the people" in terms of morals. Again, I would also love to see what goes on in there and, frankly, why not? I'm just playing the role of devils advocate.
Connor Smith my bad connor, didn't realize ur previous comment was meant for twunga
Wow, I actually agree with Judge Judy.
she's a lot more than just her character :)
Funny 'cos it's already done in Brazil for a while now. The Supreme Court has a justice channel where these major cases can be seen without media "translating" it for us.
Free access to info is awesome.
Bernie and Judy were classmates.
Dear Judge Judy. "If it doesn't function well, then you have to change it." How do the people change it? For instance Family Court is a train wreck. How do we change it???
she's so sweet I love judge Judy!
you think so judy, but some puerile just get that way under pressure in general. my did gets that way from just laughing
I never liked her.
But then I watched her videos by chance and I couldn't stop. The thing that fascinated me was her ability to not be biased (as I was to her), based on gender. She was savage to everyone regardless of what they had between their legs. She's a true role model to everyone, certainly to me.
HAPPY BIRTDAY JUDGE JUDY !!!
It's interesting that JJ talks about 'telling the truth' and why that's smart, not stupid.
I could happy sit here and continue watching her. A very smart woman
The usual expression is 'I have socks older than you." In my case my socks are pretty new but I have some really old shoes that I still wear. Did you know that as you get older your old shoes still fit!? That's great!
"I have food in my refrigerator older than you are"... lol! Priceless!
Awesome lady
There are good arguments for NOT having cameras in the courtroom. Justice Breyer explains them in an interview with Colbert.
Judge Judy for president !
I'd watch that for sure!!!
she'#s an amazing person. If all judges and people were like her.
Judge Judy ,unique !!!! I think IF every court in the USA have an Judge Jury will be non injustice.
+jo de so NO SE
+JOSE DURAN : NOW THAT I RECALL!
Judge Judy is slaying!
If I may just say, to add further praise to our neighbors to the north, there are cameras in their supreme court. 🇨🇦
Good for you but unfortunately Americans are more impulsive and less reserved than Canadians. So, there is less reason to trust them. Just look at the reaction of OJ Simpson trial verdict.
love judge Judy !!!
I never imagined he would be such a good guest. She is
well said
For record keeping? Yes. For broadcasting purposes? Absolutely not.
Why not?
@@clairehanrahan4621 so they dont want to make decisions that are good for the people they are meant to safeguard?
People that have anxiety problems will have dry mouths, and blush when put on the spot. Not always a great indicator of truthfulness.
hell yea!
I want this woman for president. Thank you!
I agree. All court cases need to be on television or online.
I absolutely LOVE Judge Judy.
She was talking about Richard Nixon’s profuse sweat in the first Televised presidential debate in 1960
the wisest smartest and loveliest woman ever! she should be president.
She's totally correct on this.
Unfortunately it's impossible because the Supreme Court decides if it happens or not lol.
+Kleavers - can't congress make that happen?
***** Technically, but it can then be overruled again constantly. But maybe most members aren't that much against it anymore.
This is what a good President would sound like. Integrity and equality baby!
I love this woman! Awesome
I think you are right. Film them.
Wait.... she's a REAL judge??
i guess, but it's not a real court in her show
yep
right? one of the first things they teach in psychology classes is that "no one" is "good" at judging body language. if you get embarrassed or forget to drink water she is going to make you pay up to $5000.
+Julian Lloyd Bona fide, with fifteen years in family court under her belt. :D I know, I was shocked when I found out too.
Yes, she is a real judge, but her show isn't a real court. The people actually get paid to be on the show, which is usually enough to cover how much they're suing for.
Judy put in 15 long hard years as a family court prosecutor. Judy put in 15 long years in the New York Supreme Family Court as a judge. Judy's put in 20 easy years as a televised arbitrator. Face it, she's seen and heard it all and she speaks the truth.
Agreed
I enjoyed a lot of her Prank calls to people here on CZcams I can tell ! You know what I mean...
wouldn't video footage lead to concious/unconscious biases?
May be the reason why lady justice is blind.
+Naio13 Same could be said for reading a transcript without the context of body language. Just look at all the misunderstandings in youtube comments when people can't tell if someone is being sarcastic, humorous, or just a plain old douchenozzle, something that is less of a problem when people are face to face because they have more information to work with than just words on a page. It is said that Lady Justice is blindfolded so that she does not see the people in front of her and is thus able to treat everyone equally. She only considers facts and law. But what if true justice requires that Lady Justice lifts the veil and considers all the information before her, including body language and facial expressions? Maybe it's time to remove Lady Justice's blindfold.
Interestingly, Lady Justice used to be free of all blindfolds and ironically the blindfold first came into existence to mock the blindness of the judiciary and the meaning of the blindfold eventually changed to represent impartiality and neutrality. Fascinating stuff, this Lady has a very long and multicultural history.
I enjoyed the interview but she is dead WRONG about the face flushing means you're lying. I have Rosecea so my face turns red for a myriad of reasons. It is SO wrong to paint everyone with that brush, especially from a former judge.
Love her 🖤
All Hail our Great and Righteous Queen, Sovereign of the Court and All of its Inhabitance, Her Majesty, Queen Judy I
This is a solid stance.
Cameras should be in the supreme court. The fact that they are not is a clear deterrent to prevent the average person from actually witnessing some of the more ridiculous rulings. The reason they gave for not having cameras are ridiculous: "The can take sound bites and use them out of context!"
Yea... You can do that with recordings and transcripts as well, only much more easily. They're just aware that most people won't pay attention unless they can easily access videos. Most people are too complacent to seek out transcripts and read them.
I thought she said with Ivanka, not with the vodka 😊
They should have cameras #TeamTrump
I think Judge Judy would be a great President for the United States.
" I forgot I have food in my fridge older than you". xD
He seemed truly charmed by her
LONG LIVE JUDGE JUDY!!!
WISDOM
Hey JJ....I have a dear friend who's chest turns red when she is anxious, scared or nervous OR if she decides to tell a lie.
Lol I'm a light skinned guy and she's right, when I lie (at least tell a big lie in a big situation) my chest breaks out in hives!
+ 1 like government should operate transparently! less dealing and stealing
Judy is more of a Joke than a Judge.
*JUDGE JUDY IS A BIBLICAL BEAST*
Appellate courts address questions of law, not questions of fact. It makes no difference to them whether a witness was lying.
Josiah, I hope this isn't inappropriate. But I just love your name and you are so handsome. By any chance are you single, gay and seeking a boyfriend? I am 29 year old, 5'9 and 150 pound male with a good head on my shoulders, college degree, never smoke nor drank nor done drugs.
+Tonetare married and straight, best of luck though
yeah my high school history teacher taught us and showed us the 1960 JFK Nixon debate. judge Judy is right.
Savage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She is the best!
SHE NEEDS TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT
the justice system is not based upon how one person "perceives another as lying"- no matter how good at their job that person is. I'm not for or against video in court - but the statement by judge judy - is outright incorrect.
In a civil case, where you give her arbitration power by agreeing to be on her show and letting the show finance whatever decision she makes, then she has every right to make the claims she made. IF the stakes on her show were more than punitive, but actual jail time or something that goes on an individuals record, I might agree with you. But when you agree to be on her show you also agree to give her full authority to arbitrate your case. 'nuff said.
She’s awesome!
i agree with her
hers is a tv courtroom not a real courtroom and she is a retired judge trying to earn a buck on telly
JJ for president.. or bring T back!
I love her.
1:12 Denied
Interesting! Now guys you know what busts you when you lie. Avoid it!
she needs to play someones no nosense grandma in a movie who is getting back on the dating scene. itd be god jerry, gold!
I for one do not want judges that sit back and drink while watching trials. I want judges that quickly read the transcripts (because that's almost certain to be faster), spend the extra time thinking carefully about the law and how it applies to the case, and then sit back and drink at home while relaxing off the stress that comes from being an actual judge.
+Travis J Hayes I'm honestly not sure if you were joking, but here's my response in case you weren't: recordings of court audio aren't going to be faster to go through than a transcript no matter how fast you speed it up, because speeding up the audio would make it progressively harder to hear the syllables correctly. In addition, the point of an appellate court is usually to decide if the original judge's decision and handling of the case matched the law, not to decide if the people in the courtroom did shady things. In fact, while it's impossible to eliminate the influence of courtroom behavior, it's the stuff that ends up on the transcripts and similar documents that is supposed to determine the outcome of a case. Tiny behavioral ticks are too unreliable. Lastly, the supreme court wouldn't benefit from trying to hide things in court, because they always have an audience.
❤❤❤❤
Hes annoying by keep interrupting her and joking
Judy shud retire
she need to run for president 😘😘😘
I like her and her show
QUEEN
She's admirable in her plain spokeness, but now that i can watch her rather than read the transcripts, she appears rather full of herself. To say that she has the omniscient ability to know whether someone is telling the truth based on certain generalizations seems more dangerous than anything you can call a sixth sense. If her questions are based on this, fine. If her judgments are, not so fine.
totally agreed
+harvardkarbodie if your a judge, and "is this guy lying to me" doesn't cross your mind, your just an idiot. LOL a judge needs to CONSIDER everything and all possibilities. i do agree she puts more effort on certain things but she's also old and that's how old people are.
+ExuberantOne I'm not suggesting the question of honesty isn't in any judge's mind. i'm suggesting that the repercussions of their decisions should preclude making snap judgements. and her saying (actually it came across more like boasting) that she could tell whether someone is lying based on physical reactions seemed to suggest that she is making judgements based on those sort of observations. if she had said that "looking at the body language of someone becomes *part* of how I decide on a person's honesty" i wouldn't have reacted. judges usually are precise in what they say, so i took her for her word.
and no that's not how "old people are". that's as ridiculous a generalization as she was making.
harvardkarbodie agree 100%
+carz89 Intuition is certainly real, but get back to me after you find yourself on the stand facing a judge, and tell me whether or not you found yourself watching every move you made in hopes that it wasn't misconstrued the wrong way.
So when a 15 year old rape victim is testifying against her attacker, it should be televised for all of her classmates, teachers, friends, and family to see? I don't think cameras in all courts is a purely good idea.
+Scott Hodgins I think you are misunderstanding her point, it is not that it should always be televised, so much as it should be documented on film, she used the example of lawyers and such looking over the case, because with just a transcript you cannot get the full understanding of what happened
It probably won't be legal to show the face of minors testifying. It happens a lot already
The Croaker The question was if she thinks all courtrooms should have cameras in them like hers - a televised show. She starts off her answer saying the American public pays for the judicial system and she doesn't see any reason why they should be able to see "every way that it functions". In this regard, I think she is wrong because exposing courtrooms to the public will change the nature of these court cases. Witnesses testimonies will be influenced, lawyer tactics will change, and judges and juries will have to consider the public's reaction to their rulings rather than being focused on the evidence.
She then elaborates that body language allows you to tell if someone is lying or not. The problem with this is that body language is complicated and prone to false positives and false negatives. Someone might look disingenuous because they're nervous or confused about a question. Alternatively, someone might be able to sell a lie by using body language.
Sadly, there are problems in the judicial system but the solution isn't in adding cameras - it's in taking out the prejudices. Judges and juries should not be able to see or know the identities of the defendants, witnesses, and plaintiffs. That way a person's race, ethnicity, or "look" won't throw off judgement and the cases can judged based purely on the quality of evidence.
Until that happens, justice will be relative to your class, race, and appearance.
+Scott Hodgins but won't presenting psychological movements and other natural things that people do help? everyone has the chance to be a liar. everyone has the chance to tell the truth. people don't act suspicious when cameras are around and they're educated about it. biases are sadly human nature. only the most accepting of us can realize this. sadly we can't do can't do anything because trump is going to win.
Idk how I got there bit it always goes there huh
the cameras aren't going to become a thing because look how long it took for us to get police to wear cameras. and they also don't want to hand over controversial footage. it's sadly just the way of the world.
Body language is non-explicit and requires interpretation, much like a polygraph test. At best, these responses can be suggestive, but they're rarely if ever definitive.
And the whole idea that cameras in the courtroom would make things more honest misses the point. Just look at the O.J. Simpson trial. The evidence, including DNA evidence showed that he was guilty. The guy even ran from law enforcement when they went to arrest him. But he was found not guilty because his $6 million dream team defense knew how to play the game. They downplayed the incriminating evidence and created a narrative that OJ was then a victim of racist detectives. With the whole proceedings televised, the jury figuratively had a cultural gun to their heads - if they ruled he was beyond a doubt guilty, they'd be labelled as racists.
Later, OJ Simpson was found guilty in a wrongful death civil suit - which wasn't televised.
Police wearing cameras is a different story. When they interact with the public there typically isn't an advocate present for the civilians. If a police officer shoots someone and writes down that they saw the citizen reach for a gun, well, it's hard to disprove it.
Finally, don't worry about Trump. Even if he beats Clinton, he still has to work within a system that is set up to prevent crazy leaders from ruining everything. If Obama couldn't close Guantanamo, Trump can't build a wall.