Cameras in the Supreme Court

[Rob Lister]

We allow cameras in the lower courts, depending on the case, the judge, and the public interest. Never (TMK) have we had cameras in the Supreme Court.

I think we should. I can think of NO case and NO reason why public presence would subtract from the process. Public trials are supposed to be the standard but the standard for 'public' has changed just as the definition of it has.

These trials are are generally the hub public interest trials.

Some, most even, may not be interesting in terms of Media Hype but certainly, most certainly, they all are in terms of consequence and impact. Future rulings necessarily revolve around each and every decision and opinion they render.

Yes, I want to know the demeanor of each justice as each question is asked. A transcript doesn't do that. Neither would a strictly audio recording. The nuances of seeing a question asked (and answered) differ vastly from just reading it.

But . . .

Yes, I want to know who is and is not falling asleep during the hearing.

Yes, I want to know who does and does not pick their nose during the briefings. Call me weird but I think it is important.

So . . .

I'm not suggesting that the broadcasting of every hearing be mandated in all cases but the availability of the coverage should be. I might go so far as to mandate web casts of each case. If porn sites and teenage muffies can afford it, so can the government.

C-SPAN could easily cover the interesting cases live. Cases that have delayed impact could be re-broadcast when said effect takes place.

I'm not suggesting a camera be placed in the decision/deliberation/joint chamber room but I want the ability to hear and see, not just read, how the cases are argued.

Downsides:

Grandstanding by lawyers before the court. I don't think this will be much of a problem even though it has been in lower cases. This is the greatest downside I see but it ain't so grand.

Grandstanding by the justices. I don't think this will be much of a problem either because they have a great deal of job security and no professional necessity in impressing anyone.

Tell me what you think.

 

[Rob Lister]

Hey you! Yea, you! Don't just vote, render your opinion in writing. This keeps the thread in public view. Public view is what this thread is about.

If I get enough support I'll start a movement to make this happen. Well, I'll drink a beer later and think about starting a movement to make this happen. I might write my sister about it because she knows someone that not only knows who their congressman is but also writes writes them.

So fess up with not only the vote but your own opinions on the matter. Add to the up side and down side. Let's hear some debate. You can't get more non-partisan than this so we can all bond for once.

 

[aerocontrols]

I don't care.

There's no option for me in your poll.

But here's my post so your thread doesn't fall off the front page for a while.

 

[Rob Lister]

I don't care.

There's no option for me in your poll.

But here's my post so your thread doesn't fall off the front page for a while.

"I don't care," would be the Planet X option. Or at least that is what I intended. But why don't you care?

 

[Manny]

I voted but I'm not going to explain why until, like, Tuesday so the thread gets back to the front of the queue during the weekday.

 

[aerocontrols]

"I don't care," would be the Planet X option. Or at least that is what I intended. But why don't you care?

Is that how the Planet X option is supposed to work?

I don't care because I don't think the question is important.

 

[Chaos]

I voted yes. Transparency, and all that...

 

[Ed]

Grandstanding by lawyers before the court. I don't think this will be much of a problem even though it has been in lower cases. This is the greatest downside I see but it ain't so grand.

Grandstanding by the justices. I don't think this will be much of a problem either because they have a great deal of job security and no professional necessity in impressing anyone.

Tell me what you think.

Disagree completely. Tape the proceedings and post them. Good enough.

 

[crimresearch]

Appellate proceedings aren't trials.


And cameras aren't the defining threshold for public access.


If we 'need' cameras in the USSC chambers, why not everyhwere else?

Including your workspace? After all, someone might be curious about when you pick your nose, and I'm sure we could find some tenuous connction between public money and you.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Cameras in the Supreme Court

Disagree completely. Tape the proceedings and post them. Good enough.

Let me argue why I don't think that is the case.

In a typical jury trial each side has a practically unlimited time to question witnesses and, in the case of cameras or even juries, grandstand.

In a Supreme Court hearing, that is not the case. For these, each side only has 30 minutes to argue their case. And this 30 minutes includes answering direct questions from the justices. The questioning session usually eats up all of that half hour excluding the one or two minutes it takes the lawyer to introduce him/herself. Grandstanding on a lawyers part would be a very foolish waste of time. Besides, the justices regularly cut them off from even rational and necessary argument just to change the subject completely to a different aspect of the case.

In the case of the justices grandstanding, I don't think that likely. It isn't like you can fire them and it isn't like you can promote them (unless you consider the ever-so-slight chance of Chief being a motivating factor). At worst, their questions would be more detailed and their rendered opinions would be more coherent.

ref on rules.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/28.html

 

[Rob Lister]

Appellate proceedings aren't trials.


And cameras aren't the defining threshold for public access.


If we 'need' cameras in the USSC chambers, why not everyhwere else?

Including your workspace? After all, someone might be curious about when you pick your nose, and I'm sure we could find some tenuous connction between public money and you.

Perhaps you didn't read that I specifically excluded "chambers". I'm talking about the already public forum of the Supreme court room.

See those things in the foreground of the photo? Those are where the public sits, should they want to or be within traveling distance. I'm guessing there's room for roughly 250 people. The case may will be of interest to a million more that number.

 

[crimresearch]

"Perhaps you didn't read that I specifically excluded "chambers". I'm talking about the already public forum of the Supreme court room."

I read it, and filed it away as an error.

You also said you wanted to hear how the cases were argued, in the USSC 'trials'.
Never mind the fact that they don't try anyone there, what exactly would you expect to learn with cameras only allowed out front, where the press is already allowed?
Lawyers appearing before the USSC are already on a pretty tight leash, since they aren't arguing a case at trial.

There is already suspicion that some of the justices enjoy playing games with the media by asking questions that do not reflect their position on the matter before them in order to stimulate silly press speculation.

The part to be curious about takes place in chambers.

 

[Rob Lister]

I read it, and filed it away as an error.

Well, obviously you were in error.

You also said you wanted to hear how the cases were argued, in the USSC 'trials'.

The semantic distinction seems to be lost on me and the court system in general. Appellate 'hearings' are just as public as trials.

Never mind the fact that they don't try anyone there, what exactly would you expect to learn with cameras only allowed out front, where the press is already allowed?

The same thing I'd expect to learn with cameras on both floors of congress, even with reporters there. A lot. These people are presumably my employees. I fully expect to be able to attend any public meeting they hold. I don't expect to have to travel 3000 miles to do so when a fifty dollar camera and a fifty dollar per month web connection could accomodate all their bosses.

Lawyers appearing before the USSC are already on a pretty tight leash, since they aren't arguing a case at trial.

Exactly my point regarding grandstanding. They'll be none of that by them.

There is already suspicion that some of the justices enjoy playing games with the media by asking questions that do not reflect their position on the matter before them in order to stimulate silly press speculation.

I'd like to see evidence that this suspicision is warranted or even applicable to the argument in question. Regardless, if so, then let the games begin. I suspect that after the first hundred or so cases they'd forget about the camera and go back to snoring or picking their noses.

The part to be curious about takes place in chambers.

Ruth constantly tugs through her flimsy robes on her nipple ring while staring at Clarence's crotch. Souder looks on jealously at Ruth. He's got a thing for Clarence.

 

[crimresearch]

Well, obviously you were in error.
The semantic distinction seems to be lost on me and the court system in general. Appellate 'hearings' are just as public as trials."

The distinction between a trial and an appellate review is significant in the context of the public's 'need to know'.

Much of the USSC's work that would be enlightening enough to support a request for cameras, takes place outside the courtroom.

As for prurient interest, I'm guessing that a Supreme Court justice picking their nose looks pretty much the same as anyone else.

 

[Rob Lister]

The distinction between a trial and an appellate review is significant in the context of the public's 'need to know'.

Which is exactly true. The appellate review is far and above more important to the public. Thank you for supporting the case I originally presented. Now I love you again.

 

[Orwell]

Bad idea. One thing the US doesn't need is more dumb media circuses.

 

[Rob Lister]

Bad idea. One thing the US doesn't need is more dumb media circuses.

If [your idea of] a dumb media circus is what the U.S. wants, and very arguably [in this case] has the constitutional right to, then who are you or I to say what it needs? Either the public is invited, as per the constitution, which certainly implies adaquate accomodation to them, or they are excluded through inadaquate accomodation.

Press does not public make.
Public does not circus make.

At least, that's my opinion.

 

[Ed]

30 minutes a side, tightly controlled. Just right for bloddy Greta.

Nononononononononononononnononononononononononono

 

[Rob Lister]

30 minutes a side, tightly controlled. Just right for bloddy Greta.

Nononononononononononononnononononononononononono

I understand (and greatly respect) your opinion but I don't understand your argument.

To me this is a cost-free (in practical and perhaps actual terms) implemention of the sixth admendment, at least as it refers to criminal prosecutions and matters of distinct public interest. Would you have tuned in to watch the USSC hearing of Bush v Gore? I know I would have.

 

[aerocontrols]

One more thing...

I have a different understanding of what an "open mike" is than you do.

I hope.