about legal drama "Judge Judy"

The judge stated the facts of the case. The couple had lived together and have one child. The woman also has children from a different relationship. The judge asked how many. In this courtroom built from concrete composite such a shame and brick, finished with mother's defiant girl and wood paneling she tilted her head down in answer, "Two. Two other children." Stain spread wings when life's changes happen in only a few words.

an obvious point about Judge Judy

Here is a conversation piece, "Justice Served: A Conversation Between RuPaul and Judge Judy."

I did my first interview for 60 Minutes 26 years ago, and Morley Safer said to me, “What direction do you think it’s all going in, and will it get any better?” And I said to him, “It’s going to get worse. A lot worse.” It’s like what you said before—you watch my program because there’s linear thinking. But there is an element of dumbing down that has been embraced by others, which suggests to me that these rules of civilization are being dulled.

This so-called conversation has a few interesting parts, but this statement stood out to me. The whole civility discussion. When she was a real judge working in New York City's child welfare system, Judith Sheindlin was accused of being insensitive. Real Judge Judy was trying to scold and scare lazy social workers, addict parents, and wayward kids into doing what she thought was right. But it was only going to get worse, so she took her chance to cash in.

The people in Judge Judy's TV courtroom have histories and circumstances that figure into why they are fuck-ups getting sued for $2000 in back rent and $750 for caving in their landlord's car windshield with a brick. Real Judge Judy and the law cannot factor in any of that. The fact that the plaintiffs and defendants are mostly all fuck-ups is part of the formula to the show's appeal.

(posts) "Hardball" by D.R.I.

In trial's coverage, large issues are ignored

Today The Washington Post included the Associated Press article "Army private’s defense team to make its case over leaked trove of government materials" which briefly sets the stage for the defense team's argument in the military trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of "releasing a trove of secret information to the WikiLeaks website" and facing 21 charges, including aiding the enemy.

Based on early trial statements, the article says the defense will argue that (1) Manning was of unsound mind and (2) other personnel had access to the machine(s) on which the alleged crimes were committed. Then, later, a contrast within the gallery is made:

A half-dozen buttoned-down, mostly young men and women favoring charcoal-colored suits have come and gone from gallery seats behind the prosecutor’s table, declining to identify themselves to journalists but apparently representing the Justice Department, the CIA or other government agencies. 

Across the room are Manning’s supporters, including a long-haired young man from the Occupy Wall Street movement and a pony-tailed, elderly military veteran wearing a “Free Bradley Manning” T-shirt.

Why does Manning have supporters? And what does the Occupy "movement" have to do with it? Some explanation would have been beneficial; these are not fans of insanity defenses and arguments of reasonable doubt. No, these supporters presumably value transparency and whistleblowing (nevermind whether Manning embodies either). But as such, the story is incomplete. Furthermore, by focusing on the contrast between the suits and long hair, the article gives the impression that Manning's supporters are unserious. Were any of his supporters in suits? Did any of them not have long hair?