Under [Sen. Arlen Specter's] proposal, which he introduced last month, cameras would be removed only if a majority of the justices determined that their presence would undermine the due process of a litigant in a specific case....I would very much like to see the oral arguments on television, but I don't think Congress ought to be imposing it on the Court. At least two of the justices -- Scalia and Souter -- have strongly opposed cameras in the Supreme Court. I should think there is a decent argument that this would be unconstitutional, violating separation of powers.
The public affairs network C-SPAN broadcasts gavel-to-gavel coverage of House and Senate floor sessions, and the network's Chairman and Chief Executive Brian P. Lamb told the Judiciary Committee that he had written to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. offering similar coverage of the high court.
"The judiciary has become the invisible branch of our national government as far as television news coverage is concerned — and, increasingly, as far as the public is concerned," Lamb said.
November 10, 2005
Can Congress force television cameras on the Supreme Court?
The L.A. Times reports on a bill that would impose television cameras on the Supreme Court:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Televised Supreme Court arguments would be interesting and might even be a good idea, but Congress has no business getting involved. If they have the right to force television cameras on the Supreme Court, does that mean they also have the right to force the President hold televised cabinet meetings ?
Cameras in the Supreme Court?
Okay, with the following limitations:
1. Not live. Never live. Unable to be live.
2. Video provided to the entire public, no less than 12 hours after the session, only on an internet server run by either the National Archives or the Library of Congress in cooperation with the Supreme Court at a resolution of no greater than 640x480. And that's the only way it is provided to anyone. No other format of recording will be used.
Why these limits? Very simple - the OJ Simpson case showed us the hazards of cameras in the courtroom. The above limitations would make it much less attractive for exploitation in that manner.
Damn... and I was just about to say the same thing as gerry...
After all... it is Congress by statute which determines the number of justices, and can create federal appelate courts. Why can't it require them to air proceedings on television?
Not necessarily a good idea, but unconstitutional? Congress isn't telling them how to decide their cases. It's simply saying that your proceedings are public (for anyone who wants to show up) and we want them to be public for everyone with a TV. Not at all like a cabinet meeting, which is typically held in private.
I agree that Congress could not impose this rule on the Court. However, COngress could impose the rule on the Court of Appeals... perhaps they will with the new 12th Circuit that will be created with the passage of the latest budget bill!
To improve access to the courts, Congress should order the SCOTUS to dress casual. Its less intimidating.
Why is this important? I am from Specter's state and I ask why does he see this as a priority now? He is so desperate for a legacy.
For unquestionable congressional power:
"the appellate jursidiction of the United States shall not extend to any case before the Supreme Court the arguments of which are not (what: televised? IP broadcast?)"
I had the same thought as elliotx. Who would be the parties? Supreme Court v. United States?
Brian Lamb is on a power trip. C-SPan 1, 2, and 3 aren't enough for him. He wants to launch C-span 4.
What if Congress conditioned future raises or some other benefit on accepting television cameras?
What exactly is the purpose which would be served by putting cameras into the court? I am at a loss to understand why the onus is on those opposed to cameras to say why not, rather than those in favor to say why. So do explain: what exactly is the compelling purpose served by putting the cameras in the courtroom?
CSPAN has a rationale: we elect these people, they are our representatives, there is a rational goal served by letting us see them work. But the court does not represent us; it is not accountable to us in a direct sense. Just as I see no purpose of the court which might be furthered by a "diversity criteria" for its membership, so I fail to understand what it is the people think the Court does which requires them to watch.
Incidentally, isn't the fact that this is Arlen "magic bullet" Specter's idea sufficient reason on its own to reject it?
I actually think Jeff's idea is really good. Then only the law geeks who are really interested in what's going on will bother. The media will not be as readily tempted to exploit what's going on for political --or other--reasons.
As to Congress, at this point, I'd prefer they not stick their noses in *anything.*
Post a Comment