Our network, C-SPAN, has long argued for greater public accessibility to the court and welcomes this development.... In 1988, we made our first formal request to then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for camera access to the court’s oral arguments....
Rehnquist agreed to let a coalition of more than 15 news organizations, including C-SPAN, conduct a demonstration in the chamber of how a two-camera setup could unobtrusively provide full coverage of oral arguments. Three justices, including the chief, sat at the bench while a lawyer for our media group took questions from the justices about the technology — just like an oral argument. We thought the demonstration went very well. Then, nothing....
Now, the court is giving the public live access to its arguments for the month of May.... The court’s move toward greater transparency should continue after the pandemic abates — and once the justices have become comfortable with live access, adding video coverage is the next logical step.
१ मे, २०२०
"On Monday, the court will, for the first time, allow the news media to provide audio coverage of its oral arguments as they happen...."
Writes Bruce Collins, the general counsel for C-SPAN, at WaPo:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
Never going to happen. Once the Court permits cameras, eventually someone is going to cut a reel of Snoozy Ginsburg dozing through her job. At which point the President will wonder why you have to be alert to drive an Uber but not to be the final vote on the Constitution.
No reason for video coverage. Audio is good enough. Video turns it into a circus, with "News Clips" showing up on you-tube, with lefty comments "How DARE Alioto say this!"
You can make the case that oral arguments are irrelevant anyway. Its all there in the briefs and the written opinions, or should be. It does allows the Justices to grandstand and ask provocative questions - one reason Thomas didn't ask questions for years.
The Supreme Court needs an Instagram account. Each Justice gets to control it one month a term.
I'm all for transparency. The presence of camaras can have sometimes have funny effects on people's behavior. It'll be interesting to see if there's ever any sort of pandering or preaching to the cameras that occurs on the part of the Justices.
Why is this a big deal? They've been allowing audio for more than 20 years. It's not live but usually available in 2-3 days at oyez.gov.
Video might be nice, thogh you don't want me watching video in my car like I can with audio
Why do we need either in real time?
John Henry
Putting a camera in the court will lead to the people in the court to play to the camera.
Have cameras raised the quality of House and Senate discussions?
All in all, I like transparent government, but there is a price paid for live coverage.
So there will be grandstanding instead of arguments.
"On Monday, the court will, for the first time, allow the news media to provide audio coverage of its oral arguments as they happen...."
I distinctly remember listening to oral arguments during the Florida 2000 election proceedings. Did I dream that?
More grandstanding?
Better questions from the Justices?
Fewer naps for RBG?
Exciting stuff.
Cameras should be allowed.
Echoing General Turgidson, "But, but, they'll see the big panel and that Ms. justice is sleeping!"
"No reason for video coverage."
They have life tenure. We should get a look at them in action. It's a safeguard against the abuse of power that is keeping one's seat after you are beyond its demands. The written work can all be done by surrogates (clerks).
"I distinctly remember listening to oral arguments during the Florida 2000 election proceedings. Did I dream that?"
Actually, you remember wrong. He talks about that in the article: "Instead, the chief justice announced the court would release an audio recording of the oral argument shortly after it was completed."
That's not "as they happen" but "shortly after."
It felt live.
"That's not "as they happen" but "shortly after.""
Thanks.
Cool. One of the features is that it will allow alternative media like the pajamas people and others to not be scooped by legacy Media who can afford to have people camped out in the court. I think they call this eagleitarianism. It allows everyone to watch the court like a hawk.
I think that in this day of social media and breathless Journalism! there will be an unnecessary increase in outside pressure on the Justices. Whether it's front of mind or in their subconscious. They should be focusing on what's in front of them, not how they will appear to sound or look, or if they are appealing, unconsciously or not, to a certain block. And don't tell me they are above all that being Supreme Court Justices. They are humans first. Look how John Roberts reacted to the NY Times haranguing and pre-slamming him for his possible take on Obamacare. He ended up calling it a tax- even when the Obama administration said it was not. He was moved by pressure coming from the print media. Wait until there is camera coverage.
The hoo-hah over any comments will get ugly. Can you imagine the lefty media going after every utterance of C. Thomas (being the racists that lefties often are). He's already been deeply hurt by the years of slamming him and disregarding his mind and opinions for the crime of being a Conservative Black man and not properly staying on the plantation. Why should he have to put up with more of that, at an even worse level?
I think it's just asking for parades of ugliness. And frankly, we have enough of that. As is now, you can read transcripts if you are interested. We can see what is being said, for those actually interested in facts. I think the Supreme Court needs to keep its cases/hearings to it's own audience.
I think cameras are a terrible idea because the footage will indeed be clipped into political highlight reels. The written decisions should matter not the oral arguments.
But I know which justice won’t worry so much about video clips becoming political against them. Clarence Thomas.
"I think cameras are a terrible idea because the footage will indeed be clipped into political highlight reels. The written decisions should matter not the oral arguments."
1. The written decisions come out much later.
2. The oral argument lets you hear directly from the advocates.
3. The oral argument lets you hear directly from the Justice, who might not be writing much of her own opinions. But she also might be relying on prepared questions. Still, there is something of a sense that you're seeing this power-wielder in action.
4. The oral argument is often much more revealing of what the Justices are thinking about, and it's interesting to try to figure that out.
5. Written arguments are very long and tedious and almost no one reads them, certainly not in their entirety. They are composed to bury problems and to make the outcomes seem massively overdetermined by precedent, text, and historical materials — to overwhelm you with authority.
It must be all that wild Democratic sex you're featuring, Ann, because the headline on this one was making quite an effect on me until the thud of that third line.
A very bad idea. It would open the door for a certain class of attorneys, with a political agenda that has nothing to do with the case, to launch a personal attack on one of the Justices during oral argument. For example, one of them,seeking support and publicity for his agenda, might launch a diatribe against Justice Kavanaugh dredging up Christine Blasey Ford's accusations she made against him during his confirmation hearings. And then close with a demand the Justice immediately resign from the Court. If this were to happen, this guy would have instant support from a sizable group of politically savvy people.
Given all we know about how the cameras affect the behavior of the people being filmed, it's hard for me to believe the justices think this is a good idea. I certainly don't.
Written arguments are very long and tedious and almost no one reads them, certainly not in their entirety. They are composed to bury problems and to make the outcomes seem massively overdetermined by precedent, text, and historical materials — to overwhelm you with authority.
Correct, Professor. And this is why we depend on you to read through decisions. And Scotusblog.
And if I haven't said it before- Thank You!
Other courts video arguments, including California Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Watch often to get some histrionics? Didn't think so.
Was disappointed Supreme Court didn't go for something like Zoom, but then I watched some three-judge zoom (a word like coke, now, right?) hearings and there were a lot of technical issues, so I can see why they didn't chance it with nine. But phone for nine (I hope Thomas tries out his line) will be very awkward, I predict.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"No reason for video coverage." "...They have life tenure...." 5/1/20, 10:54 AM
AA, I agree with you, but have reservations about your solution - live cameras?
"Life tenure" how about limiting 10 years for each justice. I have never heard of a convincing arguement as to why SCOTUS Justices deserve "Life Tenure"? Any ideas?
Good? Bad? One thing we know with *absolute certainty* is that cameras would change the Supreme Court.
I've heard, in such a way as to believe it, that the Justices utilize the "rock, paper, scissors" methodology to decide cases in chambers. Will that translate to the televised arguments? Will we have a Justice yell-out "ROCK" while another Justice mumbles "PAPER" at different points in the presentations by counsel? I'm tingling with anticipation.
Other appellate courts televise their oral arguments without any problems. And the lawyers are too busy doing their jobs to grandstand.
This ain't effing Law and Order.
5. Written arguments are very long and tedious and almost no one reads them, certainly not in their entirety. They are composed to bury problems and to make the outcomes seem massively overdetermined by precedent, text, and historical materials — to overwhelm you with authority.
They put a time limit on oral arguments, so why not put a word limit on written arguments? I hate having to listen to speeches and have never enjoyed watching lawyers. I'd much rather have well-crafted, succinct and coherent written arguments. Let's find a way to make that happen.
Bad idea. It will alter the way the justices think and respond. Bad idea.
All this talk of more media eyes on other subjects reminds me of one thing: what I want is more eyes on the media. More audits. More surveillance. More proctology. Media recognizes no right to privacy and should have none.
I suspect the left on the court will become more vocal in playing to their base. I suspect the conservatives will be less so. Finally, I suspect Justice "I just want to be liked" Roberts will be even more squishy.
What is the public interest for having video instead of audio? There is none. Its irrelevant whether the justices sleep through oral arguments or dance the tango. Its all in the briefs. The opinions are in writing.
Didn't we just get all the Media Geniuses screeching "trump doesn't read memos! he just talks to people!' Now its "SCOTUS judges are just reading and writing! They need to talk and perform on Video during oral arguments!"
Showing SCOTUS jduges on video instead of audio will just allow Leftist more power to mock/attack the Conservatives. That's what this is Really all about. If you care about DEMOCRACY, start advocating a limit on Judicial Power.
Director: What's that buzzing sound?
Assistant Director: RBG fell asleep again and she's snoring.
Director: Get the sound man in here to stop broadcasting that.
I'm with Karen on this one.
I believe in physics it's called the "Observer effect".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा