Cameras in the Supreme Court...

[Reasoning]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmdFcVy1tA]YouTube - The Case for Cameras in the Supreme Court[/ame]

 

[Father Time]

I'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.

 

[FA_Q2]

Cameras should be MANDATORY in the USSC as the cases that are heard there have far reaching impacts on all our lives. I, as an American citizen, have the right to see how and what my government is doing at virtually all times. There is a need to keep the deliberations of these cases out of the public eye so that the judges can come to sound decisions without worrying about the public but there is absolutely no reason that the trials are not available on tape.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I think there should be cameras in every courtroom in the land. The public has a right to know, and show know what goes on in our courts. It should all be a matter of public record. This way, everybody could see first hand what kind of justice is being served up in today's courtrooms, and there would be no secrets about who was guilty and guilty of what. We would also have first hand knowledge of the judges we have elected to serve us.

 

[DiveCon]

I'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.

that, and the potential for grandstanding

 

[washamericom]

would judge judy be on the show ?

 

[goldcatt]

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?

 

[LuckyDan]

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.)

 

[R.C. Christian]

Absolutely. The government, especially the SCOTUS should be held accountable for their misdeeds. We should be able to hear who says what and with what emotion. Then and only then can they be held accountable to the population and sleep at night, restless, with one eye open waiting for the U.S. population to lynch their sorry asses if and when they start shredding the constitution.

 

[cad]

what about the promise that health care negotiations were to be broadcast on CSPAN?
i want to know how the cornhusker kickback went down. or the louisiana purchase.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

 

[goldcatt]

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!

 

[LuckyDan]

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!

We'll need to sex it up somehow. "Water girls" in short black robes and heels, refilling the thermos's?

 

[Father Time]

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?

Well if the public is seeing who argues what they'd face more public scrutiny and that might influence them more to be swayed by the majority, which is something that is to be avoided.

 

[Father Time]

It would be nice to know exactly why Roberts thought schools have a right to strip search students (seriously he was the only dissenter in that case).

But there is one thing that worries me. The justices argue amongst themselves, imagine if ALL the arguments of the winning side became precedent, including those that don't make it to official documents.

Although I'm not quite sure if that's possible or not.

 

[goldcatt]

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?

If you think Congressmen don't grandstand on cspan, you're either not watching it or the blindest hack on the planet.

Seriously, it's one thing for Congress to ham it up for the cameras. They are, after all, elected partisans. They're supposed to be political. The Courts and SCOTUS in particular is supposed to be apolitical, above the fray. Why do you think they're appointed for life? Once seated they sit at nobody's pleasure, neither any politician or the People. They serve only the law.

Ideally, at least. In reality the last 25-30 years have seen the bench become more and more politicized and ideologically polarized, which is tragic. Judicial appointments have become red meat for the Bases, leading to more extreme views. Which leads in turn to murky split decisions, pluralities, bad law made by people more interested in pushing a point of view than sound jurisprudence and serving justice.

How is putting a camera in front of them so every brain dead partisan hack in the country can pressure them into voting "their" way helpful?

I'll say it again, the Justices' positions are specifically designed so as not to answer to any person or even to the People. They are the last bastion against mob rule, and above the political fray. Keep it that way.

I mean, anybody who's really that interested can probably read, right?

 

[Modbert]

We'd probably see more things like this:

Sexting Case Befuddles Supreme Court: 'What's The Difference Between Email And A Pager?'

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) doesn’t 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.

 

[goldcatt]

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?

Hey! What about all those desperate housewives? They need a little something too ya know.

 

[LuckyDan]

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.

Oh. Well in that case, I'll host!

 

[goldcatt]

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!

Where's EZ and her shirtless man pics when you need her?