Americans trust TV judges more than real ones

May 9, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Based on numbers released by Reader’s Digest Tuesday, Americans polled by the company have more faith and trust in Judge Judy that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Reader’s Digest issued a press release touting the “100 Most Trusted People in America.” The complete results of the poll aren’t available until May 14. The release includes interesting figures, but the one that’s most relevant for us is how much trust Americans place in TV judges as compared to the nation’s Supreme Court justices.

Judge Judith Sheindlin, otherwise known as Judge Judy, is the most trusted judge in America, based on these respondents’ answers. Those polled were asked to rank each name on a list of more than 200 people on how trustworthy they thought each individual is. She topped all of the Supreme Court justices, earning her a score of 51 percent. Judge Joe Brown came in at 48 percent. The release doesn’t say how the other TV judges (such as my favorite, Judge Marilyn Milian of “The People’s Court”) or the U.S. justices fared.

The release doesn’t explain why some people scored as they did, including the judges. My guess is that the average American knows more about Judge Judy than our Supreme Court justices, thanks to her show coming into his or her home daily. The problems and cases that come before the TV judges are less complicated than those our Supreme Court justices deal with. Most people will be able to understand what’s going on in a dog bite case but perhaps don’t know enough (or don’t care enough) to follow a case involving campaign contributions or patents on seeds.

One might use this poll as a jumping off point to argue for televising oral arguments of the U.S. Supreme Court. Granted, the number of people who watch the arguments would be small, and news stations likely won’t pick up on the arguments (with the exceptions of high-profile cases like health care and same-sex marriage). But at least the option is there for those who want to know what goes on in D.C. Reading a transcript of the arguments later just doesn’t have the same effect.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT