And They Get To Vote

I guess this kind of stuff makes for good tv – people love to laugh.  Well, it’s one thing to laugh at a comedian or at stupid animal tricks, but we’re talking about Americans who get to vote!

If you’re unfamiliar with some of the names that were thrown out to the people on the street by the interviewer in this video, let me help you out.  In case you’ve been living under a rock since 1996, “Judge Judy” is a highly successful reality courtroom show presided over by retired Manhattan Family Court Judge Judith Sheindlin.  (I’m proud to say that I watch the show every day and want to be Judge Judy when I grow up.)

Back to the video.  The first question asked was about Obama’s decision to appoint Judge Judy to the Supreme Court.  My immediate reaction would’ve been, “You’re kidding.”  Then I would’ve thought to myself, “if there really was a vacancy on the Court, which Supreme Court Justice retired or died? – How come I didn’t read about that?”  No one recognized the absurdity of the question.

Instead, the first guy says, “Well, he’s granted that power.”  Where did this guy go to school?  Obama doesn’t appoint anyone to the Supreme Court – he gets to nominate someone and the Senate gets to confirm that nomination.

The next question asked was whether Judge Judy was an adequate replacement for Judge Bruno Tonioli (a judge on Dancing with the Stars).  The gal answered she didn’t know if “adequate” was the word but she understood why he would make that decision.  Please explain it to the rest of us!

The next gal (with the baby in her arms) was asked if she thought Judge Judy would get along with current Supreme Court Justice Carrie Ann Inaba (another judge on DWTS) and whether their policies on the samba, tango, etc. would cause a clash.  She said she hoped they would find mutual ground and that it’s not about their personal opinions.  According to this person, “they’re representing us – they need to work for us.”  Without a doubt, this person deserves this week’s “Stupid Woman-on-the-Street Award” not only because she doesn’t have a clue about the Supreme Court, but she gets to vote and breed as well.

The last gal was asked to name her favorite Supreme Court Justice to which she responded, “the one guy that’s really old.”  The interviewer then suggested, (the actor) “Judge Reinhold,” and she said, “yeah.”

As for the guy who thinks Judge Judy, “she a gangsta,” well, he leaves me speechless.  Hopefully, he’s so stoned or out there, he doesn’t find his way to the voting booth.

If we’re to believe “every vote counts,” then, everyone – and I mean everyone – should be tested to insure they know the basics of how our government works.  It shouldn’t matter how many people were interviewed and knew the correct answers or said, “this is a joke, right?”  Even if there were only 5 numbnuts out of 20 who hadn’t a clue about the Supreme Court, then those five votes are cast by people who are completely stupid, uninformed or misinformed.

When I read a report that “four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is still the law of the land,”  “including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who say they don’t know enough to say what the status of the law is,” that is frightening.

At a recent gathering in Colorado to celebrate the legalization of weed, a gal had no idea what “sequester” meant, one wasn’t worried about “ricin,” another didn’t know who Gabby Giffords was and another, when asked if she knew who the “Iranians” were, looked puzzled and said, “Uraniums”?

If I were Empress of the World, people would be required to take the test given to those who want to become citizens.  Don’t bother giving me a Constitutional lesson about our “right to vote.”  I can’t believe our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined how anyone, in the 21st Century with every conceivable source of information available to us at our fingertips through the internet, could be as stupid as the people in these videos.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

P.S.  Did I say I want to be Judge Judy when I grow up?

Author Bio:

For over twenty years, Leona has tried to heed her husband’s advice, “you don’t have to say everything you think.” She’s failed miserably. Licensed to practice law in California and Washington, she works exclusively in the area of child abuse and neglect. She considers herself a news junkie and writes about people and events on her website, “I Don’t Get It,” which she describes as the “musings of an almost 60-year old conservative woman on political, social and cultural life in America.” It’s not her intention to offend anyone who “gets it.” She just doesn’t. Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles, she now lives with her husband, Michael, on a beautiful island in the Pacific Northwest, which she describes as a bastion of liberalism.
Author website: http://www.idontgetit.us
  • chief98110

    We are witnessing the end of civilization and the world described in
    the original 1960 version of the H. G. Wells story The Time Machine. In
    that version, humans were bred like cattle and food for the Morlocks.
    Looks like some folk aren’t good for much more than that; very sad.

  • plsilverman

    LEONA: Yes, they “get ” to vote. Is the implication that we should continue Voter Suppression tactics and/or abolish the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Who decides who is the “low info.” voter? This “man on the street” technique is good only for the unfocused brains of late nite viewers – I always see the Fox fratboy out on the street asking SUPPOSED GENERALIZED folk stuff like who is the VP, etc.? I don’t find that stuff funny because when nice people are taken by surprise by a camera and an obnoxious correspondent, they forget a lot of things – they are smart enough to know whatever they utter is seen by 65 million people. so they screw up. who cares? would love to see what the editors at the fair and balanced station left at the cutting room floor – of all those REPUBLICANS they encountered who did not know Lloyd Bentsen is the VP!

  • Cowboysurfer65

    Self absorbed. A Pew research poll asked the same “man in the street” questions about the Supreme Court; like, “Who is the chief Justice?” 13% responded: “Thurgood Marshall”. I guess I should be satisfied that my fellow citizens even knew the name of a Supreme court justice at all (never mind that Marshall was an associate Justice, not the chief; and has been dead since 1993). Watters world, on O’Reilly and Jaywalking on the Tonight show have been chronicling doltish Americans for several years. The 1st Amendment’s protection of Freedom of the press was intended to keep the citizenry of our nation informed, as we have a government designed for, and by people who would be actively involved in their own governance. The founding fathers probably never imagined a society where more than 60% of it’s citizens live their lives 2 inches in front of their own nose.
    Admiral Orson Swindle, USN (ret.) said it best: “Our nation will survive another term of an Obama presidency, but it won’t survive a citizenry ignorant enough to make him their leader”.

    • plsilverman

      The Admiral sounds a little biased. Survive another Obama term.? well, he must have been disappointed when Romney-Ryan did not have a chance to end Medicare, privatize social security, and start 3 new wars.

  • http://1389blog.com/ 1389AD

    The one wasn’t worried about “ricin” probably thinks it’s sold in boxes labeled “Uncle Ben” on grocery shelves and commonly served with beans and/or Chinese food.

  • jq2intx

    It is not a surprise to me that we have so many people who don’t know what is going on. This is a very self absorbed society, more and more people who have been told since their youngest days that they were special, and deserve to be given everything they want. Schools teach self respect, but not American History, they teach that each child is special and none should be forced to repeat any grade, and of course our politicians want to rid the schools of the standardized testing so no child should have to be embarrassed about failure. What can you expect from a people who would rather smoke pot than work?

  • Frederick Theobald

    I have always thought that universal franchise was a mistake. I believe that your ability to pay taxes should be taken into account and a graduated voting system, such as the heaviest contributors should get say 100 votes and continuing down. Those who pay no taxes or live on welfare should have no voting rights whatsoever.

  • genann59

    Leona, I honestly think a lot of the abject ignorance about public and political affairs is due to lack of education in civics, history, and even more so to how people choose to spend their time. You seldom find books in peoples’ homes anymore, libraries are empty most of the time, and people watch reality TV rather than the news. Most people just really don’t care and don’t care to know what is going on or get involved, as long as their checks keep coming in, whether from the government or from their jobs. I remember learning in school, years ago, that most people, in most countries, don’t really care what type government they live under, so long as their personal lives are not effected. I am seriously beginning to believe that. And in this country now, with no many on welfare, those who exist off that really do not want to rock the boat at all in fear their welfare will be dropped or cut back and they might actually have to get off their butts and support themselves and their children. God forbid.
    I have friends on welfare, who told me they were required to register to vote prior to the last election in order to renew their food stamps. That was the first time some in the family had voted or registered in their lifetime (over 60 years in some cases). They were also informed that if Obama lost, Romney was sure to cut their benefits. She told me her whole family, at least a voting block of 10 old enough to vote, would vote for Obama in order to keep their welfare. I tried explaining to her that the money they were taking from the government did not grow on a tree at the White House grounds where Obama could just pick the money off the tree and give it to them, but was taken from the taxes of people who actually work, to subsidize her family members sitting around doing nothing. She really could care less, so long as they get their approximately $800 a month in food stamps, all the adults have their Obama phones, plus the ones they actually pay to use, since you only get 200 free minutes on your taxpayer provided Obama phone. You need more than 200 minutes to make drug deals and all that.
    This society’s underbelly has really gone sour, and I’m not sure if it is rehabilitatable any longer. This country is in for some really hard times, and were it not for the Bible, I would lose hope.

  • LIngo Teddy

    It’s ensure, not insure, smarty pants.

  • legal eagle

    So you are presuming that these “man in the street” videos don’t edit out the 80% of people who know the right answer? It’s called comedy….

  • Darren Perkins

    Nobodies right to vote should be taken away. What needs to happen is education. We need to make sure that everyone has at least been exposed to how the government works. Maybe give tax credits for those who attend and pass a civics course. Maybe have the parties pay for the people to take them. Make it a requirement for receiving any form of aid from the govt. Incentivize people to learn about the the things that can make them good voters.

    • Ron F

      Darren, I agree that nobody’s right to vote should be taken away but why in the world would we need special education as to how government works. If they graduated from high school, they should have learned it there. If they didn’t they can take adult education classes or classes on line. We do not need an additional government program to educate voters. Finally, why in the world should someone receive a tax credit for taking a civics class?

      • Darren Perkins

        I don’t disagree with what you say but obviously people are not educated about these things. What to do about it can be debated but I don’t think that doing nothing is the answer either. to me it makes sense for the parties to be involved.

  • Todd Clemmer

    This is what happens when the government creates a “department of education”.

  • Ron F

    They get to vote because the founders, in their wisdom, did not place restrictions such as knowledge or intelligence on the right to vote. I am glad they didn’t. I don’t think they wanted elitists deciding who is qualified to vote in this country. All we know about these people is that they answered questions stupidly and it was shown for entertainment value. [I did not look at the videos so I could be wrong.] If one of them was a veteran, should they still lose the right to vote because we do not think that they have sufficient knowledge or understanding of the issues. If they don’t get to vote, should they not have to pay taxes? The Declaration of Independence, refers to “one people” not certain people. In the Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln refers to a government by the people and for the people, not some people who we think have the requisite intelligence or knowledge to vote. If we would have a knowledge requirement, who gets to decide what knowledge is required? I think the founders had it right. These people’s votes should count just as much as mine.

    • Roger Ward

      Look at the video to see just how deplorable their low level of information is. Their votes don’t count for just as much as yours, they count for more …. because their are so many of them. Every time a moron votes, it cancels your vote …. and there are a whole lot of ‘em.

    • djmooretx

      Ahem. The Founders, in their wisdom, restricted voting to landholders.

      it’s those who have followed in their footstep who have opened the floodgates.

      Personally, I’m with Robert Heinlein, who suggested once that voting booths should have sealed doors.

      You step in, the door closes, and you are presented with a quadratic equation to solve.

      If you are successful, you vote, the door opens, and you go about your business.

      If you fail, there’s a muffled scream, a thump, and the door opens on an empty booth.

      • DWD

        …and that would be the only reason I would ever to have known how to solve a quadratic equation in my entire adult life

    • telecomsearch

      Originally, beginning in 1787, only real property owners could vote. This way, plebes could not vote for government freebies paid for by the former.

      • Ron F

        Telecomsearch, the Constitution did not impose the requirement, the states did and it was not uniform. I think the main test was owning land or personal property or paying a certain amount in taxes. In addition, some states had religious tests. Catholics and Jews could not vote in some states. At some point in our history some states had literacy tests. I don’t want to go back to any of them. One of the earliest principles of the founders was that government gained its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. That would include people who we do not think are smart enough or informed enough to vote.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        Remember the phrase “no taxation without representation” Well now you might say, that due to the high numbers of folks who rent (rather then own), and have no small say in local and State Governments, what we have now is representation without taxation.

        • Ron F

          Brian, I think 62% of Americans now own their own homes and pay property taxes. I think it reached a high of approximately 68% under President Bush. I remember President Bush saying he was proud because the United States had its highest percentage of home ownership during his administration. Landlords generally pass through property taxes so a portion of tenants’ rent is for property taxes. In addition, at least in California, there are many other taxes, of which cities and counties get a percentage, such as sales taxes that renters pay so, in there case, there is no representation without taxation. There is for visitors to the state who pay sales taxes, hotel taxes and other taxes. There is a reason why hotel taxes are so high [I think it is 15.5% in Los Angeles]. Visitors do not vote.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            While my comment was meant tongue in cheek, the sad truth is, many folks today, really are voting to spend other peoples money, with little or no cost (thus no thought) to themselves.

      • Ron F

        Telecom, I have heard this said many times but I have found nothing that any of the founders said that would support it. I think they would probably agree but base on my reading, I do not think they could ever conceive of providing benefits or welfare to individuals and that it would not be a legitimate government function. There idea was that any public expenditure had to be for the common good, i.e., benefit everyone equally, not provide a personal benefit.

    • Todd Clemmer

      “…did not place restrictions such as knowledge or intelligence on the right to vote.”

      The founders left that up to us.

      • Ron F

        I agree that the Constitution is silent on the right to vote, except the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, I think, and it was left to the states but I do not believe any of the states had a knowledge or intelligence requirement on the right to vote.

      • Ron F

        Todd, didn’t the U. S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore hold that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause applied to voting. I know that they held that it only applied to the circumstances in the case but how do you restrict it to the circumstances of that case. I think in that case the Supreme Court also held that the state Supreme Court did not properly interpret state law.

    • Wheels55

      This goes to personal responsibility. Being personally responsible when voting, when driving, when managing debt, etc. seems to be a less important thing lately. We are teaching our kids that there are no real consequences for bad decisions. Obama’s Administration shows that simply saying that they don’t know is OK (Yes, I realize these are not the first government people to do that – there is just so much of it now).

    • Ted Crawford

      ” If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be” Thomas Jefferson

  • sgfan

    This is amazing the level of stupidity in America. There should be a “competency” test before any of these idiots get to vote. All would be denied that vote because they don’t have a clue of what they speak. I should laugh but I’m speechless that these people even vote! They are why we have this rogue, fake president in office.

  • Roger Ward

    As a loyal American, I support and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but there is one error in the Constitution that always hits me like a pie in the head: “All Men Are Created Equal” is clearly not true on its face, and invites criticism of its veracity. Some of us are better looking or wiser or better informed while some of us are ugly or stupid or badly misinformed, so it is perfectly clear that not all men are created equal. It would have been better if the Constitution said “All Men (and Women) Are To Be Treated Equally Under The Law” … or … “All Men (and Women) Are To Have An Equal Opportunity For Success” … or … “All Men (and Women) Have An Equal Opportunity To Fail And Die Broke If They Are Lazy, Stupid Or Unlucky.” I can think of several dozen better ways to make the equality statement than the clearly erroneous one in the Constitution. Does anyone believe that the people interviewed in the video (and their votes) should be the equal of say, Scalia or Hamilton or Jefferson or Eisenhower? I agree with the Empress that people who wish to become citizens would need to pass a rigorous civics test first …. but I would go further: as there are so many citizens already who qualify as Low Information Voters, I would make all prospective citizens and all actual citizens take the test and pass …. or they would have no right to vote.

    • G. Daylan

      How about the people who don’t know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?

      • Roger Ward

        You passed the first part of the civics test and you’re on the way to getting to vote!

    • Ron F

      Roger, I think the phrase means that all men are created equal under the law although it was not true in the case of blacks or native Americans and they did not include women.

      • Roger Ward

        I know what it means …. and I know what it says. Not the same thing.

        • Ron F

          Roger, I think it also says the same thing when taken in context with what follows. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
          unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That is the problem with requiring that people pass a test to be able to vote. I might flunk your test but I think I am qualified to vote. On the other hand there are people who know a lot more than I do about the Constitution and Declaration of Independence who think I do not qualify to vote. There is always someone smarter and with more knowledge. Most people think they have the requisite knowledge, it is other people who are not intelligent enough. It is similar to me to people’s perceptions about driving. Most people think they are good drivers and other people are bad drivers but there are a lot of accidents. And if there is a test, would it be limited to civics. If a person believes the world is only 6,000 – 12,000 years old, should they be able to vote. Again, people deciding what intelligence or knowledge level should be required for voting scares me.

          • Roger Ward

            Ron, the test I envision would be like any other test: it would have a pass level, below which the person being tested would fail and be unable to vote. Don’t worry though, we can set the pass level just below your grade, so you’d be included. By virtue of your interest in the political process and your participation in this blog, I believe your inclusion as a voter would be well justified. The purpose of the test is not to create a superior class (although that would happen), it’s to prevent the morons in this country from exercising power beyond their scope. I’ll say it again: every time a moron votes, a more deserving vote is cancelled. BTW, d j moore is correct when he reminds us that the Founders never intended for everyone to vote, only the landholders. Their feeling was that if you don’t have anything to lose, your position should not adversely impact of those who do. Makes sense to me!

          • Ron F

            Roger, states imposed the requirements, not the constitution and I think it was land or persona property owners and some states allowed you to vote if you paid enough in taxes. The idea was that you had to have a stake in what was happening although even if you had a stake but were black, native American, Catholic or Jewish in some states you could not vote. I get back to my original question, if a person cannot participate in voting should they still have to pay taxes? If so, you have created a ruling class and the problem I have with ruling classes is that someone else’s ruling class could be just as legitimate as yours. In addition, should a veteran who could not pass the test be allowed to vote?

          • Ron F

            Roger, one last thing. I do not see them as cancelling my vote. They may vote the same way I do. In any event it probably does not matter. I live in California. I cannot remember the last time I voted for a politician who won and there have been very few propositions on which I have been on the winning side. In any event, I think there votes are just as legitimate as mine. I may be cancelling out the vote of someone who is smarter and more knowledgeable than me.

          • Roger Ward

            If a moron voted the same way I did, he wouldn’t be a moron, would he?

  • DTM

    The take over of government public education by the left/progressives. For decades now turing out illiterate “graduates”. And they breed. And we are seeing the results now as so many have been released into the wild – so to speak.

    And it’s not going to change but get worse. The democrats, liberals and progressives – or whatever they call themselves now a days knew controlling education was the key to getting an Obama elected at some point. And they have total control of public education – and people willingly send their kids to this brainwashing government controlled so called public education.

    America is done. Ask Obama pal Bill Ayers – who works on “education”

  • Wheels55

    Kids should not be able to graduate from High School without passing a civics test and a personal finance test. One should not be able to register to vote without passing a political test. Everyone should be able to vote their mind and heart, but use their brain too.

    • Brian_Bayless

      A lot of schools curriculums and resources are outdated. I graduated from High School in 2000. There was one computer lab with a dozen computers that you needed permission slips from parents to use. I had textbooks that had Gerald Ford as the current President. We used slides that froze, most likely due to the fact that they were produced 50 years prior.

      All High schools should teach, in their general programs, how to balance checkbooks. They should also teach other general skills, maybe combine a home economics and shop class, and each term, teach an basic yet important skill to use in everyday life. A locker caddy and an keychain are not those skills.

      And only blaming the liberals for the lack of education is a pathetic excuse. Those states who are the worst in education are usually those who vote conservative. It goes both ways. If you dont want to fund education, it will not improve.

      • Wheels55

        I wasn’t blaming liberals. Where did you get that idea?

        I completely agree with what you stated in the first parts of your post. I taught Junior Achievement in schools for years. Kids just didn’t have a clue about business and personal finance or even the working world (some actually did and seemed to have had great conversations with their parents).

        I do think education is funded plenty if the money was spend more efficiently and on better programs about life after high school.

        • Brian_Bayless

          Didnt mean to accuse you of that, Wheels. It was in regards to the comments from the other’s above.

          Also, we need to get rid of the “Everyone wins at T-Ball” mentality that are being instilled on the children of today. It absolutely does not prepare you for the real world. Teach children how to become independent, not how and when to tattle on your peers, which is really something I see that is prevalent with kids today, even those who have recently graduated from college.

          • Wheels55

            Brian,
            Thanks for clearing that up.
            I agree too that kids are taught that there is no failure in life. Which I kind of find interesting since many kids follow sports and their team will usually lose sometime during the year – only one World Series Champ for example (unless they are fair weather fans – yuck!).

      • Todd Clemmer

        Liberals own and operate the department of education. Please return to your movies.

        • Ron F.

          Todd, one thing you and I would probably agree on is that I do not even understand why there is a Department of Education under the Constitution. It is a state function. My biggest disappointment with Ronald Reagan was that he did not eliminate the Department of Education.

        • Brian_Bayless

          That’s a well thought out statement. Some deep thinker you are.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    and so the conservative conundrum? Do we become elitist like liberals? and pander to the lowest common denominators? Or maintain intellectual integrity and lose our culture to the mob?

    • Wheels55

      I agree. The line should be drawn between establishing what is enough knowledge to vote and becoming elitists while doing so.