Posted on 04/10/2008 11:52:31 AM PDT by kingattax
I dearly wish our Founding Fathers James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had been able to see Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas explain on C-SPAN's "America and the Courts" (March 28) why they and nearly all their colleagues are so hostilely against allowing millions of Americans to see the High Court on television during the revealing oral arguments.
On that C-SPAN program, in excerpts from the Kennedy-Thomas testimony before a House committee, Kennedy, sternly lecturing that Congress should not legislate this intrusion into a key process in how and why they make their decisions, which affect so many of us, explained: "We teach that we're judged by what we write and by what we decide. ... I do not want an insidious dynamic introduced into my court that would affect the relations that I have with my colleagues.
"It would be unhelpful for the collegial relations. ... I don't want to think that one of my colleagues asked a question because he or she was on TV. And I don't want that temptation to exist. ... We (Justices) think that we should be entitled to at least a presumption of correctness and to some deference in determining how best to preserve the dynamic of the wonderful proceeding that we know as oral argument." Agreeing, Thomas said, "The concern is that you begin to have a sort of a tabloid effect because of the personalities involved as opposed to the substance of the case."
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
I agree. It is not done in secrecy. TV tends to bastardize the process.
2 words
judge ito
If these black robes are so easily influenced by the camera, what else is unduly influencing them?
Sunlight is a strong disinfectant and G_d knows we need to seriously sanitize Washington.
What say you John? (aka congressmanbilly bob)
Yes, with limitations.
As with the House and Senate cameras, fixed positions only for the lectern and broad view of the Justices. No panning or zoom ins of participants. The questioning can be shown by using a PIP of the lectern below the nine Justices; that way there's no camera to play to and no camera-eye bias to intrude.
No.
If the judges could truly ignore the cameras, no problem - but since they’re human, they’ll (to varying degrees) start performing for them. SCOTUS proceedings are, for the most part, secret: published briefs are submitted, a very short period of discussion (oral arguments) may be granted to sort out any misunderstandings or clarifications not worth a full request-and-submit cycle, and then the verdict is discussed and written in private, with only the final verdict published. In no part of this process does “performance” play a part; it’s all in writing. Briefs are public, the verdict is public, transcripts of the oral arguments are public and if you really want to be there then get in line early.
Oral arguments are very confusing to a public which does not follow the case closely: much is presented/taken out of context, obscure & misleading questions may be asked, answers may be extremely precise unto obfuscation, etc. This is not like other court cases where the whole issue is presented, discussed, and ruled on verbally in person. For _Heller_, there were a half-million words of written argumentation, and the verdict will likely be very long and precise, yet oral arguments involved only a very few very pointed (and often very obtuse “devil’s advocate”) questions addressed very curtly (and many of those designed to strain/confuse/embarass/insult the lawyer on stage) in a manner that would confuse the general public.
To introduce cameras would introduce a need for the judges to not merely ignore a small audience of highly motivated, interested, and informed public attendees, but to lay out details and otherwise perform for a potential audience of millions of people largely ignorant of the details & nuances of the case.
Oral arguments are not full coverage of the case, but brief & marginal discussion of footnotes. Those demanding broadcast of oral arguments indicates ignorance of what oral arguments entails; they likely don’t even understand their request.
There’s a big difference between sunlight and spotlight.
My only concern would be moonbats or other creeps disrupting the proceedings hoping to be on television, since we know their only reason for living is to see themselves on the 6:00 News. I personally would love to view oral argument on a regular basis because, as Leon Uris put it in QB VII, “here is law for law’s sake.”
I can’t remember if they allowed video streaming of the arguments in Bush v. Gore, but I loved sitting at my desk listening to the oral argument on my radio - does anyone remember?
I was typing my reply while you were posting yours - a more eloquent argument against cameras could not be made. I’m assuming you’re either a legal professional or someone who loves the law.
If cameras ARE introduced, that’s how it should be done: a single, fixed, full-stage, sterile, undramatic view that captures the proceedings in their full bland lack of glory. Pan-and-zoom adds drama where none is warranted. Watching on camera should be as bland as reading the transcript.
With no view of the audience, there’s no camera to play to.
Didn’t hear of the arguments being broadcast, would have liked to hear them. Too late now.
“If these black robes are so easily influenced by the camera, what else is unduly influencing them?”
Absolutely anything and everything that influences everyone else. Alan Dershowitz said judges are the weakest link in our justice system and the most protected. Although putting TV cameras in courtrooms is not the answer, the public would be better served by paying more attention as to who gets on the bench and what they do after they get there.
It’s human nature to take the audience into account when the spotlight is on.
As I wrote above, there’s far more to it than the judge’s reaction to the camera. SCOTUS oral arguments are effectively so far out of context as to be practically meaningless to anyone but the judges themselves; it’s like trying to understand the submitted briefs by reading only the footnotes.
You want to shine a light on SCOTUS procedings? You want a camera in the chambers/conference room where they discuss the case with nobody else present. THAT is where the real decisions are made. Oral arguments mean nothing save a brief opportunity to ask a few very pointed questions; the transcript is sufficient.
lol
Exhibit #1: The Congress of the USA that has accomplished practically nothing but preening in front of the TV camera in this election year. The most egregious example of their verbosity accomplishing absolutely nothing was the Roger Clemens debacle.
they should do a flashback, 12 years later, where are they now?
The people proposing this are mentally unstable.
Where does this end?
Televising conversations between the justices and their clerks? That’s at least as much of the deliberative process as oral argument. Probably far more so.
You can attend sessions of the Supreme Court and you’re free to report on them. Let’s not turn everything into a TV reality show, because the cameras affect behavior.
Closed doors and secrecy are not healthy for any supposed free and open society.
The only reasonable exception should be matters of national security and only so long as the threat remains extant.
No.
Scotus is not a public debating club or court tv.
Oral arguments are only a part of the process (which are already recorded and transacriptied) and are primarily for clarification of written arguments. They make no sense without a familiarity of all submitted written arguments and briefs. The written part of the process - including the decisions - are by far more important and revealing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.