Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Federal Records Act, passed in 1950, specifically excludes the Supreme Court. In 1978, in the wake of Watergate, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act, which made the papers of American Presidents the property of the federal government; destroying them is a federal crime. There is no judicial equivalent. The Supreme Court’s official papers—formal filings, such as petitions, opinions, and briefs; and official records, such as audio recordings, transcripts, and governmental, case-related correspondence—end up at the National Archives. The papers of the Justices, if they save them, tend to go to the Library of Congress, to their alma maters, to their home towns, or to some other place they happen to like. They’re scattered across the country, and, by the time they arrive, they have, as a rule, been carefully culled.
The secrecy surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court derives from a policy set by the fourth* Chief Justice, John Marshall, who wanted the Court to issue single, unanimous decisions and to conceal all evidence of disagreement. His critics considered this policy to be incompatible with a government accountable to the people. “The very idea of cooking up opinions in conclave begets suspicions,” Thomas Jefferson complained. This criticism has never entirely quieted, but every time things get noisy the Court simply brazens it out. To historians and journalists who are keen to have the Court’s papers saved and unsealed, advocates of judicial secrecy insist that the ordinary claims of history and of public interest do not apply to the papers of U.S. Supreme Court Justices; the only claim on the Justices is justice itself.
Sitting Justices often view their colleagues’ decisions to make their papers public without delay as a betrayal of the living.
There is a really good article in the New Yorker.
The Federal Records Act, passed in 1950, specifically excludes the Supreme Court. In 1978, in the wake of Watergate, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act, which made the papers of American Presidents the property of the federal government; destroying them is a federal crime. There is no judicial equivalent. The Supreme Court’s official papers—formal filings, such as petitions, opinions, and briefs; and official records, such as audio recordings, transcripts, and governmental, case-related correspondence—end up at the National Archives. The papers of the Justices, if they save them, tend to go to the Library of Congress, to their alma maters, to their home towns, or to some other place they happen to like. They’re scattered across the country, and, by the time they arrive, they have, as a rule, been carefully culled.
The secrecy surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court derives from a policy set by the fourth* Chief Justice, John Marshall, who wanted the Court to issue single, unanimous decisions and to conceal all evidence of disagreement. His critics considered this policy to be incompatible with a government accountable to the people. “The very idea of cooking up opinions in conclave begets suspicions,” Thomas Jefferson complained. This criticism has never entirely quieted, but every time things get noisy the Court simply brazens it out. To historians and journalists who are keen to have the Court’s papers saved and unsealed, advocates of judicial secrecy insist that the ordinary claims of history and of public interest do not apply to the papers of U.S. Supreme Court Justices; the only claim on the Justices is justice itself.
Sitting Justices often view their colleagues’ decisions to make their papers public without delay as a betrayal of the living.
The Supreme Paper Caper
I think those papers should belong to the public and available immediately. I understand that brings a new set of problems and why it's not done.
I'm gonna go out on a really short, brittle twig and assume that Disir's favorite contemporary novelist is John Grisham.
Not trying to hijack your thread, Dizzie: am just sayin' is all.
Well, having read many judicial decisions, if you were a Leftist jurist, in terms of one's credibility, one would NOT be well served to let too many adults get a sense of the reasoning which they use in the fabrication of their decisions.
And that is because their reasoning is subjective and the justice can only be served through objective reason.
See the problem?
There is a really good article in the New Yorker.
The Federal Records Act, passed in 1950, specifically excludes the Supreme Court. In 1978, in the wake of Watergate, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act, which made the papers of American Presidents the property of the federal government; destroying them is a federal crime. There is no judicial equivalent. The Supreme Court’s official papers—formal filings, such as petitions, opinions, and briefs; and official records, such as audio recordings, transcripts, and governmental, case-related correspondence—end up at the National Archives. The papers of the Justices, if they save them, tend to go to the Library of Congress, to their alma maters, to their home towns, or to some other place they happen to like. They’re scattered across the country, and, by the time they arrive, they have, as a rule, been carefully culled.
The secrecy surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court derives from a policy set by the fourth* Chief Justice, John Marshall, who wanted the Court to issue single, unanimous decisions and to conceal all evidence of disagreement. His critics considered this policy to be incompatible with a government accountable to the people. “The very idea of cooking up opinions in conclave begets suspicions,” Thomas Jefferson complained. This criticism has never entirely quieted, but every time things get noisy the Court simply brazens it out. To historians and journalists who are keen to have the Court’s papers saved and unsealed, advocates of judicial secrecy insist that the ordinary claims of history and of public interest do not apply to the papers of U.S. Supreme Court Justices; the only claim on the Justices is justice itself.
Sitting Justices often view their colleagues’ decisions to make their papers public without delay as a betrayal of the living.
The Supreme Paper Caper
I think those papers should belong to the public and available immediately. I understand that brings a new set of problems and why it's not done.
At the same time ... Supreme Court Justices are not elected by the people nor responsible to the people.
Their responsibility is to ensure the Constitution is upheld in their decisions. Seeing as so many Constitutional principles have been bastardized by political parties interested in interpreting the Constitution they way they see fit ... I can understand the desire to leave the non-disclosed arguments out of the public discussion.
There are two common phrases and principles people have a tendency to think are included in the Constitution ... Where they are not. The interpretation of those principles coupled with the desire to make them fit the actual text of the Constitution ... Is the result of public information not meeting the burden of court responsibilities.
1. Separation of Church and State
The Constitution doesn't include language that is consistent with how that principle is attempted to be applied. The First Amendment doesn't say you cannot pray in school ... And clearly states a citizen is free to practice their religion.
2. Right to Privacy
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from illegal search and seizure in regards to government activity ... But does contain any right to privacy in general.
Perhaps the documents are culled to remove more instances where a Justices opinion may be used to further deteriorate a more Constructionist view and responsibility towards the actual text of the documents. It is one things to consider the implications of the law ... And the desire to assume those implications are actually written in the law.
.
Well, having read many judicial decisions, if you were a Leftist jurist, in terms of one's credibility, one would NOT be well served to let too many adults get a sense of the reasoning which they use in the fabrication of their decisions.
And that is because their reasoning is subjective and the justice can only be served through objective reason.
See the problem?
Try again.
Well, having read many judicial decisions, if you were a Leftist jurist, in terms of one's credibility, one would NOT be well served to let too many adults get a sense of the reasoning which they use in the fabrication of their decisions.
And that is because their reasoning is subjective and the justice can only be served through objective reason.
See the problem?
Try again.
No... I'll just wait for sufficient evidence to add up, which will inevitably prove it. I'm good... .
Culled? Like Hugo Black the strict constructionist? Libertarian leaning? Now what could Rehnquist possibly have to hide?
So, the public can't handle it. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it.
And as a historian?
So, the public can't handle it. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it.
And as a historian?
Do you have anything to support the idea the public is qualified to do the job of a Supreme Court Justice ... Or the ability to interpret the law to same degree of jurisprudence?
.
So, the public can't handle it. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it.
And as a historian?
Do you have anything to support the idea the public is qualified to do the job of a Supreme Court Justice ... Or the ability to interpret the law to same degree of jurisprudence?
.
I want this for the record. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it. The public can't handle it.
So, the public can't handle it. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it.
And as a historian?
Do you have anything to support the idea the public is qualified to do the job of a Supreme Court Justice ... Or the ability to interpret the law to same degree of jurisprudence?
.
I want this for the record. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it. The public can't handle it.
For the record ... Can you explain why the Supreme Court was specifically designed to uphold the Constitution and absent of responsibility to the people?
.
So, the public can't handle it. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it.
And as a historian?
Do you have anything to support the idea the public is qualified to do the job of a Supreme Court Justice ... Or the ability to interpret the law to same degree of jurisprudence?
.
I want this for the record. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it. The public can't handle it.
For the record ... Can you explain why the Supreme Court was specifically designed to uphold the Constitution and absent of responsibility to the people?
.
Is that your answer?
So, the public can't handle it. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it.
And as a historian?
Do you have anything to support the idea the public is qualified to do the job of a Supreme Court Justice ... Or the ability to interpret the law to same degree of jurisprudence?
.
I want this for the record. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it. The public can't handle it.
For the record ... Can you explain why the Supreme Court was specifically designed to uphold the Constitution and absent of responsibility to the people?
.
Is that your answer?
Is that your answer?.
Do you have anything to support the idea the public is qualified to do the job of a Supreme Court Justice ... Or the ability to interpret the law to same degree of jurisprudence?
.
I want this for the record. Your stance is that the children can't grasp it. The public can't handle it.
For the record ... Can you explain why the Supreme Court was specifically designed to uphold the Constitution and absent of responsibility to the people?
.
Is that your answer?
Is that your answer?.
You consider the public to be children. Understood. It is also understood that you did an about face once it was realized that right wing Justices would be releasing paperwork.
I understood you completely.
