Reason.tv: Why Have Cameras Been in Katie Couric's Colon But Not The Supreme Court?

Cameras are everywhere today: In convenience stores, at intersections, the workplace, your computer, your cellphone, ATM machines. There's even been a camera in news anchor Katie Couric.

Yet there's one place cameras have never been allowed: The U.S. Supreme Court. Just what are Supreme Court justices hiding beneath their robes that they continue to say no to cameras in their courtroom?

For decades the White House and Congress have opened their public business to television cameras, but the judicial branch has remained staunchly against the practice. As C-SPAN's Brian Lamb tells Reason.tv, the justices have rebuffed every attempt to videotape the oral arguments phase of Supreme Court proceedings. On this, an often-divided court remains unanimous, even if the arguments offered up Justices Scalia, Breyer, Thomas, Kennedy, and others remain even weaker than the majority's logic in their awful Kelo decision, which legitimated eminent domain abuse.

Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have spoken in favor of cameras in the Supreme Court. Can a new batch of justices, more attune to the benefits of transparency, finally change things for the better?

"The Case for Cameras in The Supreme Court" is written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts.

Approximately 3.40 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||

    Didn't they have live audio a few years ago for one case? A Title Nine case?

  • WTF||

    I remember listening to the audio for Grutter v. Bollinger.

  • Suki||

    Was it live or delayed? Can't remember.

  • ||

    There's even been a camera in news anchor Katie Couric.

    Thus the ultimate in narcissism.

  • Arcane 1980's lyric||

    I want the doctor to take your picture, so I can look at you from inside as well.

  • Katie Couric||

    Is it in yet?

  • ||

    it keeps falling out...

    OK, me bad, bad, bad.

  • Trent Reznor||

    I wanna feel you from the inside.

  • Vapors||

    Do you really think so?

  • Tim||

    She should have asked her colon what it's favorite Supreme Court case was.

  • The Supremes||

    Crap, have you ever watched C-SPAN?

  • ||

    OK this really makes a lot of sense dude. I like it.

    Lou
    www.remain-anonymous.at.tc

  • AA||

    You would.

  • AA||

    It makes me happy that Katie Courics butt hole had something to do with the headline. It doesn't get any better than that.

  • ||

    The cameraman was a brown-nose.

  • AA||

    That was deep. You have a great feel for whats going on on the inside, Sun.

  • ||

    I wonder if they'll use a soft-focus lens for Diane Sawyer's colonoscopy.

  • ||

    if you combine oral arguements...with colonscopy ...do you get analligus?

  • WTF||

    Yeah, it really stinks.

  • hmm||

    That is a headline win.

  • ||

    The oral arguments are only for show. Many are broadcast on audio, but that's a waste of time as well. Like Clarence Thomas said, minds are already made up.

  • DJF||

    Just like in the Senate and House where the “debate” that is televised is just for show since the real lobbing occurs out of camera range

  • ||

    Whether there are cameras at oral argument should be solely up to the Justices. If they don't want 'em, so be it. I can't see any benefit to the Republic either way, personally.

  • Tim||

    Who wants SCOTUS mixes on you tube?

  • ||

    no benefit to the republic? well, apart from the fact that open government, government that doesn't do stuff in secret is... generally speaking... better and more democratic.

    let's put cops on camera. let's put scotus on camera.

    fwiw, i think the scotus gets this almost magickal talismanic aura . iow, it's "differnt" except it's not from other branches of govt. that should be open to public view.

    i think FOIA, and open govt. in general is a public benefit. i'm not sure why similar openness in the SCOTUS is not desired.

    btw, some of PJ Orourkes funniest bits were on scotus oral arguments.

    courts should generally be open. secret courts should be rare & require a high degree of justification imo

  • hmm||

    I have the plan. Lets put a camera in the ass of all the justices and have Katie do a show on it.

  • Corduroy||

    I had almost forgotten about Katie and her colon, thanks Reason.

  • ||

    I like to show the video at parties, just before I serve the pâté.

  • ||

    I don't want cameras in the court. Look at what its done on C-SPAN. Yuck.

  • Holy Cow||

    But what about the Supremes right to privacy?

    What if one of them should run a red light during a court session?

  • The Gobbler||

    Two reasons why the court should never be filmed:

    1. Sotomayor
    2. Kagen

  • ||

    TMZ can handle the upskirt shots -- that'll teach everyone.

  • zoltan||

    Seven more:

    3. Souter
    4. Ginsburg
    5. Thomas
    6. Roberts
    7. Alito
    8. Scalia
    9. Kennedy

    They all ugly as hell.

  • ||

    roberts has a certain boyish chahm

  • alan||

    Why Have Cameras Been in Katie Couric's Colon But Not The Supreme Court?

    'cause my penis and that of any red blooded male doesn't want to be anywhere near the Supreme Court. Duh.

    Except maybe when Ruth was still hot.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Obviously cameras in the SCOTUS would be unconstitutional. Just ask the SCOTUS. They said so, and they are the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what isn't. The document has no objective or understanbdable meaning whatsoever without their magic pronouncements.

  • ||

    Now that cameras are concealed in pens and other innocuous gadgets, it is time to secretly record the deliberations and release them in defiance of the arrogance that supports the ban. In fact, it is indefensible that deliberations are secret.

  • JETarpon||

    For that matter, I'd bet a camera has been in the colon of just about every one of the Supreme Court justices, too.

  • ||

    Hey, REASON, I agree that cameras should be allowed in SCOTUS, but it's time do start the debate over cameras in the classroom. The technology is now cheap enough to make this feasible. Reasons:
    1)it is a public forum, not a private one.
    2)it would protect teachers and students against false accusations.
    3)it could serve as witness in disputed cases of misbehavior or malfeasance.
    4)it would provide a window on poor teacher performance (better than having an administrator sitting in on an occasional class).
    5)it would provide proof of misbehaving students to parents in denial about their sweet angels.
    And, the reason this will never happen: UNIONS

  • ||

    you leave something critical out: if you are referring to classrooms that involve children (under 18) than there are well recognized privacy interests. all sorts of stuff that is public and open when it comes to adults has privacy interests when it comes to children. a perfect example is criminal conviction records. any person's criminal conviction record is generally speaking - public record.

    a juvenile's record, or an adult's record when he was a juvenile is generally not public record

    your argument might apply very well to public COLLEGE classrooms, but not high school, junior high, etc

  • ||

    I'm not saying that classroom cameras should be open on the net to anyone who wants to watch. I'm saying that having things recorded in the classroom provides a means to verify what happened should the need arise. I, as a parent, can walk in and observe what's going on in my child's class at any time. The only problem is, that a teacher or student won't misbehave if I am standing right there. Why shouldn't I have access to video documentation if my daughter claims that a teacher is being sexually provocative toward her?

    Of course, there would have to be procedures and approvals to get to see the videos, but they should be available for my petitioning. There are already security cameras in hallways and other school locations. Why should a classroom be any different? How is a child's privacy affected differently if he's in the hallway or the classroom? As the system exists right now, if there is misbehavior on the part of the student or the teacher, there's no way to find the truth; it's a case of he said/she said. This seems a logical, practical way to eliminate uncertainty.

    In the case of administrators knowing how a teacher is performing, how many teachers are not going to step it up when an evaluator walks in the room? Having a camera lets them know that they always need to be on their 'A' game, not just phoning it in like so many teachers I've seen.

  • ||

    While dealing with the Justices' arguments against the camera, Braggs and Gillespie don't actually make much of an argument *for* cameras in SCOTUS, relying upon the idea that it's self-evident--sort of like saying "Why not?" I would tend to agree with this bias, but it *is* a bias, and not an argument.

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement