tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post113422445263595974..comments2024-03-28T23:47:08.912-05:00Comments on Althouse: Why Congress should impose TV cameras on the Supreme Court.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134669458973031622005-12-15T11:57:00.000-06:002005-12-15T11:57:00.000-06:00If we let cameras into the court, everybody will f...If we let cameras into the court, everybody will focus too much on the justices' appearance. A president shouldn't spend a moment thinking how his nominee will appear on television. Justices shouldn't be thinking about botox and hair implants when they hear court cases.GEB4000https://www.blogger.com/profile/15210091717497146410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134291636179393182005-12-11T03:00:00.000-06:002005-12-11T03:00:00.000-06:00Steve,I agree to an extent. My question was based ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I agree to an extent. My question was based on two things: First, there is at least the impression that prosecutors do use the courtroom as a political stepping stone.<BR/><BR/>Second, I'm not suggesting that people will become buffoonish in front of the camera, but rather attempt to get a nice soundbite in. I just don't think that that is appropriate. Maybe the single, static camera idea obviates this concern.<BR/><BR/>I'm not suggesting it's a deal-breaker, just that it is a concern to be addressed.<BR/><BR/>XWL, <BR/><BR/>do we webcam their clerks also? (The late, great A3G would have loved that one...)Poohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088628100700088755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134274307189575282005-12-10T22:11:00.000-06:002005-12-10T22:11:00.000-06:00Arguments, yes. Deliberations, even better.The Sup...Arguments, yes. Deliberations, even better.<BR/><BR/>The Supreme Court isn't like other courts. They aren't even like other grand juries. An exception could be made where privacy of a litigant still matters, but for most cases not only should the arguments be heard but I think the <I>deliberations</I> between the Justices should also be televised.<BR/><BR/>That might lead to secretive meetings in corners away from the camera's eye in groups of 2 or 3, but that probably goes on to some extent anyway.<BR/><BR/>When the full 9 speak with each other I think it's in the public interest to hear what they say and know how they arrived at their final conclusions.<BR/><BR/>The arguments matter and definitely should be spread as wide and far as technology will allow, but I advocate going one step farther and opening up the deliberations for public eavesdropping.<BR/><BR/>It would be a radical departure, unprecedented compared to any other court in the world, and a boon for democracy.<BR/><BR/>Maybe a State Supreme Court could try on that sort of openness for size first to see how it works. I've even heard the states described as 'laboratories of democracy', what a concept!XWLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13646729965929680256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134266336221115212005-12-10T19:58:00.000-06:002005-12-10T19:58:00.000-06:00Pooh, given everything that goes into the effort a...Pooh, given everything that goes into the effort and the stakes involved, fools typically don't get to argue before the Court. Cameras or no cameras, I can't imagine good lawyers would do anything other than try to sway at least 5 of the people in front of them.<BR/><BR/>Given the enormously important role the Court plays in our open society and the role it occupies in actually defining that society and the rules by which it operates, it's pretty amazing (and shameful) that arguments aren't televised.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, comparisons to C-SPAN don't do justice to the crispness, brilliance and drama on display at Supreme Court arguments.steve u.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134260164442013152005-12-10T18:16:00.000-06:002005-12-10T18:16:00.000-06:00Is it being too cynical to suggest that televising...Is it being too cynical to suggest that televising O/A might provide an incentive for grandstanding (political or otherwise) by advocates appearing in front of SCOTUS?Poohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088628100700088755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134250842203828702005-12-10T15:40:00.000-06:002005-12-10T15:40:00.000-06:00"In any case, I think the public would be well ser..."<I>In any case, I think the public would be well served by the ability to see and hear these arguments?</I>" - how and why? "<I>Cameras in the conference room would be another matter.</I>" - <BR/>why?<BR/><BR/>What you have to ask yourself is: on balance, has CSPAN been positive for the public's image of Congress and what Congress does? People who answer unequivocally "yes" are likly to support cameras in the Supreme Court, as are people who view the court's role in Brennanesque terms. Those who have concerns about CSPAN's effect and the court's role are likely to be more sceptical. So, has CSPAN been positive for the public's image of Congress and what Congress does? Is the public better informed today about how the Senate works? Are members of the House of Represenatives less corrupt, and debate more enlightened? To be sure, there are transient, voyeuristic thrills to be had from watching Congress at work, and indeed, the case for televising a democratic branch of government is far stronger than that for televising the court, but I simply don't think CSPAN has helped. When I first moved to America, I thought CSPAN was the best thing since sliced bread - I watched it incessantly. But the more I've thought about it, the more sceptical I've become of its benefits.<BR/><BR/>I yield to no-one in my admiration for Justice Scalia, and I agree that with cameras, he would win many new adherents. This is A Very Good Thing (tm). But this is not sufficient argument to bring cameras into the court. The problem is, it is so EASY these days to watch Congress. And when something is easy, it breeds lack of commitment. Want to know what Congress is doing? You can just flip the channel. But, if it's as easy as the push of a button to finhd out what Congress is doing, it's as easy as the push of a button to go watch something else. By contrast, anyone can attend oral argument, but the fact that it takes <I>effort</I> to do so - one must drive to Washington, or worse yet, get on a plane - breeds commitment. If you've driven from Wisconsin to watch the Court at work, by God you're going to stay there and watch it work, not just take it in pieces as the mood strikes.<BR/><BR/>The benefits of cameras, I think, are illusory and ephemeral, even more so than with Congress (where, at very least, a good argument can be made that these are our elected representatives, and we therefore ought to be able to see them at work; no such argument should be possible if the court's doing what it's SUPPOSED to be doing), and the potential problems too severe. With instant access to the arguments and the briefs, every evening newscast will carry armchair Justices saying how they'd decide the case, devaluing the actual work of the court. And the concern that cameras will encourage people to think of the court as a branch of govennment, responsible to constituencies, will encourage a trend I think to be a very bad thing, the tendancy to make law not say how it applies to a case. It will only encourage Anthony Kennedyism.<BR/><BR/>I want to watch the arguments on television, too, Ann. I would watch it gavel-to-gavel. I'd tivo the arguments and annually compile a "greatest hits of October Term 200x" video for Ninoville. But the concerns far outweigh the benefits, IMHO, and thus - absent a genuinely compelling argument in favor of televising the oral debates, or even broadcasting audio live - I respectfully dissent.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134248304971246722005-12-10T14:58:00.000-06:002005-12-10T14:58:00.000-06:00Ann:I disagree with you on this one and wrote abou...Ann:<BR/>I disagree with you on this one and wrote about it in a post about the oral arguments released in audio form last week: http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2005/12/scotus-audio-recordings-of-oral.html.<BR/><BR/>I may write about this topic more extensively on my own blog later. <BR/><BR/>Mark DanielsMark Danielshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205344762960756655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134231080096945412005-12-10T10:11:00.000-06:002005-12-10T10:11:00.000-06:00Art: You wrote: "I agree that if the court isn't o...Art: You wrote: "I agree that if the court isn't on TV when the other branches are, it will become a less than equal branch." I did not say that. I said just about the opposite.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134230706304629452005-12-10T10:05:00.000-06:002005-12-10T10:05:00.000-06:00Okay, but only one fixed camera taping the proceed...Okay, but only one fixed camera taping the proceedings. No close-ups and no shots of spectators, reporters, etc. <BR/><BR/>You know, like CSPAN before it became politicized.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134226196717191612005-12-10T08:49:00.000-06:002005-12-10T08:49:00.000-06:00Also, Art, you're saying "I agree" to something I ...Also, Art, you're saying "I agree" to something I never said! Much as I like agreement, I don't want your comment to stand as a summary of what I just said. Indeed, I said practically the opposite!Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1134226111861881282005-12-10T08:48:00.000-06:002005-12-10T08:48:00.000-06:00Art: It would scarcely enhance the Court's politic...Art: It would scarcely enhance the Court's political power for them to appear political.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.com