Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
that, and the potential for grandstandingI'm not sure what benefit having cameras in the Supreme Court would bring.
The only thing I can think of is that if one of them were to make a faux pas it'd give the media something to obsess over. Not sure if that's a good thing.
Trials? The Supreme Court doesn't do trials.
Caveat: with a few exceptions so rare you can count the number of trials held by SCOTUS in its entire history on one hand minus a finger or two.
It listens to oral arguments in appellate cases which are, in effect, only clarifications of points in the briefs submitted by the parties and others long before the hearing. I'm not sure what good cameras would do, since to understand the oral arguments the audience would have to understand the briefs. Not that most people can't do that if they felt like spending the time - but how many would?
Or would the people advoocating cameras also advocate dumbing down the process so Judge Judy fans don't have to put in any effort to follow it? Polarize the ideological camps even further by promoting rah rah team grandstanding? Maybe add a few talking heads and a spin room to turn it into a real freakshow?
No thanks. The proceedings are open gallery and fully reported. What more do we need?
Trials? The Supreme Court doesn't do trials.
Caveat: with a few exceptions so rare you can count the number of trials held by SCOTUS in its entire history on one hand minus a finger or two.
It listens to oral arguments in appellate cases which are, in effect, only clarifications of points in the briefs submitted by the parties and others long before the hearing. I'm not sure what good cameras would do, since to understand the oral arguments the audience would have to understand the briefs. Not that most people can't do that if they felt like spending the time - but how many would?
Or would the people advoocating cameras also advocate dumbing down the process so Judge Judy fans don't have to put in any effort to follow it? Polarize the ideological camps even further by promoting rah rah team grandstanding? Maybe add a few talking heads and a spin room to turn it into a real freakshow?
No thanks. The proceedings are open gallery and fully reported. What more do we need?
Trials? The Supreme Court doesn't do trials.
Caveat: with a few exceptions so rare you can count the number of trials held by SCOTUS in its entire history on one hand minus a finger or two.
It listens to oral arguments in appellate cases which are, in effect, only clarifications of points in the briefs submitted by the parties and others long before the hearing. I'm not sure what good cameras would do, since to understand the oral arguments the audience would have to understand the briefs. Not that most people can't do that if they felt like spending the time - but how many would?
Or would the people advoocating cameras also advocate dumbing down the process so Judge Judy fans don't have to put in any effort to follow it? Polarize the ideological camps even further by promoting rah rah team grandstanding? Maybe add a few talking heads and a spin room to turn it into a real freakshow?
No thanks. The proceedings are open gallery and fully reported. What more do we need?
Open your mind, GC. Get with the times!
I see pop-up fun-facts about the Solicitor General, the amendments. Sound effects. A "cuckoo" for stupid questions and a "ding!" for good ones. 800#s to phone in your own decision. A half-time show ("Do Process!") with commentary, including body language analysis. We'd need a legal "Jimmy the Greek" type to give odds. Maybe Dershowitz. He's hyper enough. We could call it SCTV! (Or has that been done? No matter. We'll think of something.)
Trials? The Supreme Court doesn't do trials.
Caveat: with a few exceptions so rare you can count the number of trials held by SCOTUS in its entire history on one hand minus a finger or two.
It listens to oral arguments in appellate cases which are, in effect, only clarifications of points in the briefs submitted by the parties and others long before the hearing. I'm not sure what good cameras would do, since to understand the oral arguments the audience would have to understand the briefs. Not that most people can't do that if they felt like spending the time - but how many would?
Or would the people advoocating cameras also advocate dumbing down the process so Judge Judy fans don't have to put in any effort to follow it? Polarize the ideological camps even further by promoting rah rah team grandstanding? Maybe add a few talking heads and a spin room to turn it into a real freakshow?
No thanks. The proceedings are open gallery and fully reported. What more do we need?
Open your mind, GC. Get with the times!
I see pop-up fun-facts about the Solicitor General, the amendments. Sound effects. A "cuckoo" for stupid questions and a "ding!" for good ones. 800#s to phone in your own decision. A half-time show ("Do Process!") with commentary, including body language analysis. We'd need a legal "Jimmy the Greek" type to give odds. Maybe Dershowitz. He's hyper enough. We could call it SCTV! (Or has that been done? No matter. We'll think of something.)
A sort of cross between Pop-Up Video, American Idol and the Super Bowl? It has possibilities. And if you opened a Vegas betting line on those odds, you'd have a mega hit. We might be able to pay off the deficit with that puppy. Way to think outside the box, I'm sold!
Trials? The Supreme Court doesn't do trials.
Caveat: with a few exceptions so rare you can count the number of trials held by SCOTUS in its entire history on one hand minus a finger or two.
It listens to oral arguments in appellate cases which are, in effect, only clarifications of points in the briefs submitted by the parties and others long before the hearing. I'm not sure what good cameras would do, since to understand the oral arguments the audience would have to understand the briefs. Not that most people can't do that if they felt like spending the time - but how many would?
Or would the people advoocating cameras also advocate dumbing down the process so Judge Judy fans don't have to put in any effort to follow it? Polarize the ideological camps even further by promoting rah rah team grandstanding? Maybe add a few talking heads and a spin room to turn it into a real freakshow?
No thanks. The proceedings are open gallery and fully reported. What more do we need?
Ya, like all that grandstanding that is done when cspan shows congress. Advocating coverage is not advocating change or 'dumbing down.' I do not care what the benefits are to be truthful. All government should be recorded for the public, it is our right to see and experience what our government does. There is no downside to giving people exposure to their own government. Is there ONE good reason to not have the proceedings open to the public via cspan?
Trials? The Supreme Court doesn't do trials.
Caveat: with a few exceptions so rare you can count the number of trials held by SCOTUS in its entire history on one hand minus a finger or two.
It listens to oral arguments in appellate cases which are, in effect, only clarifications of points in the briefs submitted by the parties and others long before the hearing. I'm not sure what good cameras would do, since to understand the oral arguments the audience would have to understand the briefs. Not that most people can't do that if they felt like spending the time - but how many would?
Or would the people advoocating cameras also advocate dumbing down the process so Judge Judy fans don't have to put in any effort to follow it? Polarize the ideological camps even further by promoting rah rah team grandstanding? Maybe add a few talking heads and a spin room to turn it into a real freakshow?
No thanks. The proceedings are open gallery and fully reported. What more do we need?
Ya, like all that grandstanding that is done when cspan shows congress. Advocating coverage is not advocating change or 'dumbing down.' I do not care what the benefits are to be truthful. All government should be recorded for the public, it is our right to see and experience what our government does. There is no downside to giving people exposure to their own government. Is there ONE good reason to not have the proceedings open to the public via cspan?
The first sign was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. - who is known to write out his opinions in long hand with pen and paper instead of a computer - asked what the difference was between email and a pager?
At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else.
Does it say: Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you? Kennedy asked.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrangled a bit with the idea of a service provider.
You mean (the text) doesnt go right to me? he asked.
Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy. Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies? Scalia asked.
Open your mind, GC. Get with the times!
I see pop-up fun-facts about the Solicitor General, the amendments. Sound effects. A "cuckoo" for stupid questions and a "ding!" for good ones. 800#s to phone in your own decision. A half-time show ("Do Process!") with commentary, including body language analysis. We'd need a legal "Jimmy the Greek" type to give odds. Maybe Dershowitz. He's hyper enough. We could call it SCTV! (Or has that been done? No matter. We'll think of something.)
A sort of cross between Pop-Up Video, American Idol and the Super Bowl? It has possibilities. And if you opened a Vegas betting line on those odds, you'd have a mega hit. We might be able to pay off the deficit with that puppy. Way to think outside the box, I'm sold!
We'll need to sex it up somehow. "Water girls" in short black robes and heels, refilling the thermos's?
A sort of cross between Pop-Up Video, American Idol and the Super Bowl? It has possibilities. And if you opened a Vegas betting line on those odds, you'd have a mega hit. We might be able to pay off the deficit with that puppy. Way to think outside the box, I'm sold!
We'll need to sex it up somehow. "Water girls" in short black robes and heels, refilling the thermos's?
Hey! What about all those desperate housewives? They need a little something too ya know.
We'll need to sex it up somehow. "Water girls" in short black robes and heels, refilling the thermos's?
Hey! What about all those desperate housewives? They need a little something too ya know.
Oh. Well in that case, I'll host!