The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
SCOTUS Will Hold In-Person Arguments, But Will Not Be Open to the Public
The Court will also provide a live audio feed from the Court.
The Supreme Court is making progress towards a return to normalcy. This Term, the Justices will hear arguments in person. But attendance will be limited to the Justices, "essential Court personnel, counsel in the scheduled cases, and journalists with full-time press credentials." The sessions will not be open to the public. But on the plus side, the "Court anticipates providing a live audio feed." And soon enough, Justice Barrett will make her first public appearance on the bench.
This announcement is significant for several reasons.
First, since the Delta outbreak, I worried the Court would continue hearing arguments over the phone. I am so glad they have abandoned that practice. It was stilted and forced. All of the other branches of government have managed to gather during the pandemic. The Judiciary should as well..
Second, the Justices have now set a new precedent: it is possible to live-stream audio from inside the Supreme Court. For the past two terms, the Court simply provided C-SPAN with access to a conference call bridge. But now, the Court will broadcast audio from within the Court. There are many microphones and other systems that will now have to cooperate with an outside source. In theory, at least, the Court could continue live-streaming arguments even when the pandemic subsides. The Justices can always use a tape delay.
Third, the Court was willing to sacrifice public access to ensure in-person arguments. I think this tradeoff is well worth it. Given limited attendance, the admitted people can space out in the giant courtroom. Presumably, everyone will be wearing a mask, other than the Justices. I doubt the Court installed plexiglass dividers along the bench.
Before the Court does resume normal operations, I hope they can revamp their admission processes. There are better ways to allow lawyers and the public into the building. I offered several suggestions here.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am pissed by the exemption for journalists. Either they should be excluded or the general public should not.
Bingo
Precisely.
None of them provide any value greater than that provided by a random US Citizen sitting there, and most of them are dishonest hacks who provide far less value than a random US Citizen would provide
The arrogance and conversion of the chattel of the public by the stupidest people in the country know no bounds. They are Ivy indoctrinated idiot savants with sensitive feelings.
The Court has livestreamed arguments for decades, just not to the public. The arguments were livestreamed into the attorney's lounge.
I hope the Court continues the practice of giving time to each Justice. It is much more orderly and easier to listen that way, as opposed to the old practice of having the Justices interrupting the lawyers and each other.
Any updates as to whether or not Roberts will resign or if he even heard of or responded to your demand that he do so?
Ouch!
Should be a return to “normality.” But alas, the Harding Curse continues.
normalcy is easier to say
Weird that it doesn’t work that way with other words. Formalcy, banalcy, and finalcy aren’t great to say. Although maybe that’s just because they never became a habit.
"Second, the Justices have now set a new precedent: it is possible to live-stream audio from inside the Supreme Court."
Yes, the issue has always been whether it's possible for them to do so.
It has absolutely nothing to do with them not wanting to do so.
Eh, I can't even summon the energy to be sarcastic.
it is possible to live-stream audio from inside the Supreme Court.”
Anyone ever heard of radio?
Seems like a waste of time. The Court has already shown that is capable of deciding cases, including constitutional cases, based solely on limited printed briefs. It should abandon all the fluff and show of full briefing and just hand down rulings on those.
No oral arguments.
No full briefing.
All decisions ... by shadow docket!
Well played, QBC, well played.
Are you stupid, or just dishonest?
When someone asks for a stay or injunction, either the Court grants it, or it doesn't.
But, in either case, it will, as it always has "based solely on limited printed briefs".
including in a large number of cases where State laws were struck down without anything more than "limited printed briefs".
But that was ok, because there they did what you wanted.
Do you have to be mentally, emotionally, and morally defective in order to be on the Left?
Or is it just a big plus factor?
Let me guess:
"But in the case of a State restricting someone's Constitutional rights, the default should be to enjoin the law until the case can be decided!"
Great! So, now, let's get rid of every single State and Federal "gun control" law, that is, file lawsuits against them and have them enjoined until such time as the Supreme Court has fully determined that those laws don't violate the US Constitution.
Until then, every US Citizen who hasn't been convicted of a felony can own, make, buy, and sell machine guns and sawed off shotguns (sure, SCOTUS previously found against the right to own those. But that was pre-Heller, and every single gun control law passed before Heller is now open to question). And all sorts of other fun guns.
Works for me!
Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-thru
Well, working at the Wendy's drive though is probably your intellectual level.
Well, maybe not. After all, I trust the clerk at the drive though to give me what I ordered, and not steal my credit card info.
You, I wouldn't
But seriously, you go to the Wendy's drive though to whine about the "Shadow Docket"?
You must be a lot of fun
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/bo21i6/someone_replied_to_my_comment_saying_maam_this_is/
Yes, sh!t for brains, I understand what QBC is trying to do
I also understand it's total bullsh!t, launched because even QBC knows its whines are total crap.
So, I'm mocking QBC
But not being an utter moron, I mock using something I thought up, rather than something someone else thought up
Sir, this is an Arby’s.
IOW, you know the initial whine about the Shadow docket was a pile of sh!t, but you don't care.
Because you never let principle, morality, or ethics get in the way of your lust for power.
It really must suck to be you
You're right I didn't care. What I cared about is how you seemed very unaware that you went on several rants in response to his comment and didn't seem to understand the Wendy's joke. So I tried to educate you. You claimed that you understood the reference, but in doing so you went on another unhinged rant and called me "shit for brains." Which indicated you actually did not understand what was happening. Most people take the L instead of devaluing fast food workers. And here again, you are going from "Sir this is an Arby's" to "Because you never let principle, morality, or ethics get in the way of your lust for power. It really must suck to be you."
Which 1) Lol 2) I don't have a lust for power, if I did, I wouldn't be wasting my time procrastinating at work by engaging you.
And FWIW, it doesn't suck to be me because I have a decent job, good friends, a loving family, and live in a nice city. And I find the time to read things about morals and ethics and think about how I can apply Judith Sklar, T.M. Scanlon, or Thich Nhat Hanh them in my life, which also kind of gets in the way of the power lust you imagine I have.
"journalists with full-time press credentials"
John Roberts' real constituents.
The constant seething about the media on the comments section on this blog is incredibly misplaced.
Its a comment [not a seethe] about Roberts.
Damn cowards
I hear the shadow docket is moving to Twitch.
Mr. D.
Justice Thomas said very little during decades of live oral arguments, but since oral arguments have been conducted over the Internet, he's been participating extensively.
I'll miss it.
-dk