She “threw him off”? More like the other way around.
And there's your answer in a nutshell. Because the septuagenarians on the court can be cranky, inattentive, or just plain asleep during the proceedings. Who'd want that on camera?
What was nasty about it?
Read the lead. Is this reportage or an editorial?
Well, to my lights, it sure isn’t reportage.
This girl has a future in the mainstream media - she deftly took his answer and completely ignoring it's content twisted it into a soundbite to serve her political point of view.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me.
What’s nasy and impolite are the vast majority of rulings sent down.
I don’t get it. It sounded like a valid question. Did I miss something? Who peed in Justice Scalia’s Wheaties?
I’ll hear the audio before I’ll believe the reporter. It’s that bad.
The only legitimate reason I can think of for prohibition of cameras is to prevent lawyers from playing to them ... but it’s easy to think of reasons why video would be helpful.
Most Americans have no idea what goes on at the Supreme Court – none – except that somehow the court decides really important questions, like whether everyone in the country will be allowed to commit sodomy. Most Americans don’t have time to read the court’s often-lengthy opinions, and downloading and listening to audio recordings is more than a little cumbersome.
Tool. After all, it’s ‘his’ court. Lol.
We are clowns. Every dam public office or court room should have a camera in there watching our ‘masters’.
She probably p’d him off by mentioning the book tour part while he was there on a book tour. Still, there was nothing particularly nasty about the question.
Seems like a reasonable question to me.
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.