Posted on 02/04/2009 10:28:37 AM PST by presidio9
In a room filled with some of Palm Beach County's most powerful people, it took a 20-year-old political science student to throw off U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday afternoon.
Student Sarah Jeck stood in front of 750 people and asked Scalia why cameras are not allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court even though the court hearings are open, transcripts are available and the court's justices are open enough to go "out on book tours." Scalia was at the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts in part to do a book signing and wasn't happy at the question.
"Read the next question," Scalia replied. "That's a nasty, impolite question."
Scalia's trademark mixture of humor, confidence and combativeness was on full display Tuesday at a luncheon put on by the Palm Beach County Forum Club and Bar Association.
In a half-hour speech, he described the division on the nation's highest court, not between liberal and conservative, but how the justices view the U.S. Constitution. More than 750 people packed the luncheon, including judges, politicians and prominent local attorneys, to listen to a man admired as fervently as he is maligned. In the back corner, sat Jeck and her Florida Atlantic University classmates, excited to hear Scalia speak.
His speech centered on two main schools of thought on constitutional law:
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
The "living document" Democrats aren't about to tow that old fashioned line of thinking.
He must have been having a bad day or didn’t like the way she asked the question. He answered the same question recently on C-SPAN, I think from a high school student. He said that some people watching the court sessions on TV would develop an improved understanding and appreciation for how the court worked. But the other 99,999 out of 100000 people would just see highlights which were taken out of context and used to generate controversy.
It seems to be a simple question that could have been simply and politely answered...but wasn’t.
The article says that Scalia later said that he didn’t think that the cameras wouldn’t be a good idea and that he thought that people wouldn’t get the whole picture by just watching bits of it on TV....which he could have said in the first place.
How dare a pathetic little worm question a demigod. /s
the way she asked it was childish and imature. she is going to make some feminist happy someday.
She did not just ask “why no cameras” she used the question to bait a assuming quesiton. she could have cut to the chase and just called him a hypocrit.
If she really wanted to ask about cameras she would have, instead she was a little snot student who has only thie intelectual capacity of the stunted brain capacity obama voters.
It WAS impolite. Simply what is the reference to “book tours” supposed to imply? She blew it right there.
If that final phrase had not been included in the question, punk Sarah Jeck might have gotten a more detailed answer. Instead, she chose to insult a guest and got what she deserved: to be ignored.
Unlike Congressional hearings which are really just stages for the Congressfolk to perform on, Supreme Court hearings actually conduct important business. The ridiculous gaggle of press photographers you find in hearings would be a huge and unnecessary distraction.
Of course, Scalia could have just explained it instead of acting like Justice Crankypants.
So there were no questions as to why Scalia is conspiring with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito to maintain Obama’s presidency by refusing to hear the cases brought by the 9/11 Truther Phil Berg?
Administration of the court (cameras, visitng hours, security, and the like) is under the purview of the Chief Justice. Hence, Justice Scalia’s response (I presume).
The question was rude because of the final portion of the question: taking a shot at Scalia because he chose to go on a “book tour”.
The person perhaps was trying to be cute, but was being rude. I don’t blame Scalia for shutting her down.
there are audio tapes.
it is just the media whores who get the legal reporting wrong who are screaming for cameras.
They don’t want to educate the public, they want to inflame the public via out of context soundbites
Ya!
Those old know-nothings need to be replaced by snot-nosed, knee-jerk liberals, capable of making up law on the spot, irrespective of what’s in the Constitution!
/sarc
Also, cameras in a court proceeding is not routine.
Scalia is probably right about people not watching the entire deliberation.
But as the student stated the deliberations transcripts are available as recordings of many cases.
Of course the real meat and potatoes work goes on behind closed doors when the Justices debate amongst themselves over the merits of the case.
I personally agree with Scalia but for another reason. I don’t want the Justices to become even more swayed by the perceptions of the general public because the unconsciously start to worry how they will appear on television.
Installing cameras in and around the workplace is for little people.
LOL! That was my point exactly!
Put cameras in the court & the justices (the conservative ones) are going to be sound-bitten until they bleed-out.
The little mini-me Helen Thomas wasn’t interested in asking a question and getting an answer. Like most “journalists” she only wanted to make a statement.
I think this is the part of the question that was impolite. It was a nasty shot at Scalia by some little imp trying to make a name for herself.
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.