Judicial Nominations, SCOTUS

Judge Judy Should Be Nominated For The Supreme Court Vacancy

President Obama should nominate Judge Judy -- she is the perfect replacement for Justice Scalia.

By  
on
Justice Judy?

Justice Judy?

“Scalia’s Death Sets Up Collision,” declared the February 16, 2016 Wall Street Journal headline. A day earlier, the Los Angeles Times headline warned, “Supreme Showdown in the Works.”

Republican leadership called on President Obama to let the next president nominate Scalia’s replacement. In response, Mr. Obama challenged Republicans to offer a plausible rationale for their position stating, “The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now.” The Republicans have been unable to provide substantial legal authority to support their claim of an election-year exception to the nominating process.

If President Obama were to nominate a potential justice, the Senate Judiciary Committee would usually gather information, schedule hearings, call witnesses, debate the merits of the particular nominee, and then make its recommendation to the full Senate for its vote.

At this point, it would appear that the only plausible options are numerous contentious hearings or weeks or even months of a deadlocked, eight-member Supreme Court.

Pure applesauce.

There is a third, better option. President Obama should nominate Judge Judy.

Sponsored

Judge Judy is the perfect replacement for Justice Scalia. In fact, 10 percent of college graduates believe that Judge Judy is already on the Supreme Court.

“There is a crisis in American civic education. Survey after survey shows that recent college graduates are alarmingly ignorant of America’s history … They do not know the Father of the Constitution, and nearly 10% say that Judith Sheindlin – “Judge Judy” – is on the Supreme Court” laments the American Council of Trustees and Alumni in a recent report.

Judge Judy has to be on any thinking person’s shortlist. She has been described as having a “sharp-tongued approach to finding the truth. Her quick wit makes people laugh out loud,” according to a CBS press release. Justice Ginsburg recently described Scalia as “a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh.”

Sheindlin and Scalia are cut out of the same judicial cloth. To prove my point, let’s take a quiz. Who made the following statements, Scalia or Sheindlin?

  • “Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t mean the law has to treat everyone equally.”

Sponsored

  • “’The operation was a success, but the patient died.’ What such a procedure is to medicine, the Court’s opinion in this case is to law.”

Sheindlin made the first statement and Scalia the second. Okay, two more:

  • “Pure applesauce.”
  • “I’m the boss, Applesauce.”

The first is from Scalia and the second is from Sheindlin. You have to admit that there is a similar judicial temperament.

I can make my best case for a Justice Judy Sheindlin in four words: “cameras in the courtroom.” Seventy-four percent of Americans want cameras in the Supreme Court according to a recent survey by pollsters McLaughlin & Associates. It’s a slam dunk that Judge Judy would be in favor of cameras. After all, she won an Emmy Award and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame thanks to her 20 years in front of a camera.

Even if President Obama could be convinced to nominate Sheindlin, there is one more hurdle. We would have to convince her to take a pay cut.

An associate justice makes $213,000 per year. Judge Judy, on the other hand, makes $47 million per year. She tapes her show 52 days a year at the Sunset Bronson Studios in Los Angeles, California. That’s over $900,000 per day. During the less than 20 weeks per year that she works, Judge Judy takes her private jet from her New York home to tape the show on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. She recently signed a contract extension with CBS through 2020. Let’s hope the agreement has a Supreme Court nomination “out clause.” Or even better, CBS could rebrand the show and call it “Justice Judy.”

Wouldn’t it be great? Justice Sheindlin’s first opinion could be an overturning of a statute endorsed by President Trump. I can hear it now…

“You’re fired, Applesauce.”

Jon Pfeiffer is an entertainment trial attorney practicing in Santa Monica, California. Jon also is an adjunct professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, where he teaches media law. Visit Jon’s website www.pfeifferlaw.com or e-mail him at Pfeiffer@pfeifferlaw.com.

Topics

, , , , , ,