New at Reason
Steve Chapman wonders when, if ever, the Supreme Court will subject itself to video cameras.
Comments to "New at Reason":
thoreau | July 30, 2007, 8:54am | #
I'm fine with cameras in the Supreme Court, but I have mixed feelings on what the alcohol policy should be.On the one hand, I think it would be awesome to see some drunk Supreme Court Justices on camera. On the other hand, if they start acting like drunk guys at football games, and take off their shirts to reveal that their chests were painted with the logos of their favorite teams, well, that could get troublesome.
I propose a 2 drink minimum, 4 drink cap. That way we get them buzzed and loose, but not crazy.
The only harm I could see from allowing cameras into the SC would be speakers posturing more for the cameras than the court. That, and any added attention to the court might inspire politicians to tamper with it with age limits and such. Otherwise, the benefit of actually hearing real arguments could raise the discourse in the media. Just imagine if O'Reilly had to cite precedent in an argument.
x,y | July 30, 2007, 9:25am | #
Oral argument is already largely irrelevant. I don't see how adding cameras -- and more posturing -- would change the situation at all. Cases are won and lost on the briefs.Warren | July 30, 2007, 9:41am | #
What TV coverage would do is give citizens a chance to personally observe one of their most important government institutions and, in the process, gain a richer understanding of how it works.I don't think so. As noted, oral argument is just ceremonial. The one benefit that might come of it, people would see 'lifetime appointments' results in doddering, addle minded, geezers more cognitively impaired than the parent they had to put in a home last year, sitting in judgment of us all.
Appointments to the court should be for a single twelve year term
The Supreme Court does its work on paper. No need for cameras in there.
Pro Libertate | July 30, 2007, 10:52am | #
I oppose the broadcast of oral arguments. That would just result in further political grandstanding, and the public airing of oral arguments won't do any good, anyway. It's not like this stuff isn't already a matter of public record.Now taping what happens behind the scenes would be instructive. I wonder how many justices over the years were merely figureheads for their clerks?
Lamar | July 30, 2007, 11:12am | #
"Now taping what happens behind the scenes would be instructive."You mean like seeing Ginsburg nakie?
Pro Libertate | July 30, 2007, 11:20am | #
Ugh--no.ChrisO | July 30, 2007, 11:28am | #
As someone who has sat through numerous Supreme Court oral arguments (and participated in the briefing of many more), I can say with certainty that those were some of the most boring moments of my life.Supreme Court cases almost all revolve around highly technical points of law that would interest only a handful of law geeks. They rarely discuss the policy issues that the media all worked up.
One time, I had to sit through a morning argument to be in the gallery for an afternoon argument in a case in which I had participated in the briefing. The morning argument was some ungodly boring and complicated tax case, and I would have had little less understanding of the proceedings had the lawyers argued in Aramaic. The arguments are designed for the Justices and the lawyers to address no more than a couple of legal points of contention, rather than the case as a whole. There is no real background given, since all of the participants have already read the briefs. A viewer who hasn't read the briefs would have almost no clue about what's going on.
That's not to say that the arguments shouldn't be televised, just that doing so would hardly be some triumph for democracy.
Oh, and by the way, it's not entirely true that oral argument is now mere ceremony. A few of the current Justices believe that (Thomas, especially), but most of them find the argument useful for crunching through uncertain issues. Putting the lawyer on the spot to defend his/her position can be useful in "smoking out the truth", as it were. The saying among lawyers is that you cannot win a case at oral argument, but you can certainly lose it.
badIdea | July 30, 2007, 12:06pm | #
Cameras in the supreme court are a bad idea... the minute this happens there will be calls to popularly elect the justices and we will have to welcome a third legislative branch.Jake Boone | July 30, 2007, 12:09pm | #
Remember what happened when the bad guys opened the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark? That's what happens if you, a mere mortal, dare to gaze upon the deliberations of the Supreme Court.Vermont Gun Owner | July 30, 2007, 12:11pm | #
I was under the impression the Supreme Court already is a legislative branch, just with fancy robes and a bench and a hammer-thingy.Urkobold™ | July 30, 2007, 5:15pm | #
VERMONT GUN OWNER,HAMMER-THINGY? ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SEIZED AND IS NOW WIELDING MJÖLNIR? A FEARSOME DEVELOPMENT, IF TRUE. ONE THAT WILL SHAKE THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO ITS VERY CORE.
Fred | July 31, 2007, 11:17am | #
With Roberts in the hospital, the new televised proceedings can be called "Search and Seizure" (*rimshot*)JamesP | July 31, 2007, 2:45pm | #
If we broadcast the courts then how are the fixes going to be able to be hidden then?We would all be able to see the incompetent Judges and impeach them one by one until we have a "fair" system. I know it's the best around, but there is a lot of improvement needed.
Interesting that The Specter (R-PA) is on this as he is the Architect of the 3rd Circuit (PA)- Alito's home base. What game is he playing now? Maybe we can see more European Law applied again
The Supreme Court is an important, ANTI-democratic check on our democratic system. The constitution that the Court interprets exists largely to contain the excesses of the federal government. Every time the Court strikes down a law based on the Bill of Rights, it acts against democracy and in support of the individual. I think a press to make the Court more accessible to the public would be a step in the wrong direction. The judges should not feel that they have to answer to the public. I would also hate to see certain judges attempt to gain disproportionate power on the court by pandering to the public.