The Deliberation Must Be Televised: Why We Should Have Cameras In The Supreme Court
Open government shouldn't just mean "open to people in the Washington, D.C. area or to those with money to travel there."
In the LA Times, law prof Erich J. Segall writes that we should all be able to watch Supreme Court proceedings, same as we could the Comey proceedings:
The Supreme Court does not currently allow any of its public oral arguments or decision announcements to be televised, live-streamed, videotaped or photographed. This blackout deprives the American people of something that is rightfully theirs: the ability to observe government officials perform important duties that only a select few can witness in person.There may have been a period when cameras in courtrooms presented unknown risks, but that time is long past. Fifty state supreme courts already allow them, including the Texas Supreme Court, which live-streams and archives all of its oral arguments.
Texas Justice Don Willett, who is on President Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, recently told me: "My court has been webcasting for a decade. No hiccups. No regrets. No going back. We inhabit a hyper-partisan age, and there's enormous civic-education upside in We the People seeing their judges tackle fateful issues with thoughtfulness and civility. I wouldn't presume to lecture the Supreme Court of the United States, but our experience has been overwhelmingly positive."
...There are no strong arguments against televising or live-streaming court proceedings. The justices have said that it could lead to misunderstandings about how the court works and enable journalists to take snippets of arguments out of context. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy even hinted that he's afraid his colleagues might grandstand. But media distortion of the proceedings is already a possibility, and when there is debate over what happens inside the court now, there is no visual evidence to consult.
...Many of our country's most important political debates and decisions take place inside the Supreme Court. We should all be allowed to witness what a few hundred lucky citizens and journalists get to see.
The counter argument is about possible violence, but as Segall points out, the Justices' identities are not kept secret, and some even go on TV to promote their books.
Hmm...could the Justices opposed to video of the proceedings possibly be worried that they might get caught -- say...nosepicking or nodding off?
(Just wonderin'!)
> We should all be allowed
> to witness what a few hundred
> lucky citizens and journalists
> get to see.
Well, that's not possible. If you want to witness it, you have have to be there.
Watching television is not "witnessing" anything.
Television is automated entertainment. You've sold your soul to other people's machinery; you've been had, but your foolishness ought not corrupt the clarity of others.
Crid at June 15, 2017 10:26 PM
I mean, no:
"Blackout" is a broadcasting jargon from the space age, which is why this person couldn't resist the allure: The word has that Cold War vibe of hazard and dispassionate condemnation.
It's not a blackout. A Scotus hearing is an event that happens in a room where a bunch of interested people get together and hash things out. Sometimes there are a few chairs left over for visitors.
We can't all attend the Ariana Grande concert at the same time, either. There are too many of us, so she sells tickets to diminish our enthusiasm.
The Scotus can't do that, so they offer limited seating. The ones who get in aren't "select" in any meaningful sense... They were mostly just standing nearby when the tickets got passed out.
I really hate the childishly fashionable distortion of language in that passage. These are the same idiocies that have compelled elections towards eminently corruptible computerization.
Crid at June 15, 2017 11:12 PM
I agree with Crid. There is nothing visually important going on in the Supreme Court. The oral arguments for a limited audience on a few cases are enough of a dog and pony show, and if you think there is anything legally important going on in that public forum, you don't understand either what the Supreme Court is, or what it does.
Everything important is issued in a written opinion, and you are never going to see the sausage being made.
Isab at June 16, 2017 4:57 AM
"If you want to witness it, you have have to be there."
Why? Such a retro view.
It's hard to listen to audio alone. The video component keeps our attention when nothing's happening and tells us who's talking.
Why, when we have the capacity to record both video and audio, should we have audio alone? Or nothing?
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2017 5:52 AM
Um https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript.aspx Anything that is said is here. If anything the people that would most object to video would be stenographers.
"journalists to take snippets of arguments out of context" Um yeah solid point. Those lying slippery rating grabbers do that to everyone. Well except Obama they worshiped him or were too afraid of being dubbed racist (FOX). On the other hand they are appointed for life so no risk of job lose.
"his colleagues might grandstand" Again valid. Using your own time to sell your books cool. Using work time to pander to their supporters not cool.
walter at June 16, 2017 6:18 AM
"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."
Apart from creating trust and acting to help ensure the right thing is being done, televising/streaming Supreme Court proceedings carries the 'risk' that some members of the public may actually become more interested in and informed of their rights, instead of just watching mindless entertainment while blindly trusting 'the system' ... can't have that, can we.
Lobster at June 16, 2017 6:21 AM
Meanings-of-words debates aside, I don't see any good reason not to stream SCOTUS proceedings today. Yes, the audience for it will be very small. (I personally have time to sit around all day watching government proceedings.) However, the fact that it is there serves as a reassurance that our government is proceeding according to Constitutional principles (or not, as the case may be).
Prohibitions against television in courtrooms go back to the days when television cameras were huge heavy things on dollies, requiring an operator, and needing lots of bright (and hot) lights in order to function. And lots of thick cables strung across the floor, and a production facility had to be accommodated in the building. Nowdays, you tuck a few webcams and mics into niches in the wall. You maybe have one "producer" who chooses the feed, or just stream them all and let the viewer choose. People forget it's there, and so there is no concern about participants mugging for the camera.
Cousin Dave at June 16, 2017 7:03 AM
Televised court proceedings. Yeah, that'll work. We learned all we need to know about cameras in the courtroom from the OJ trial. Once you introduce the cameras, the judges, the lawyers, everyone begins playing to them.
Marcia Clarke changed her hairstyle during the OJ trial because viewers and commenters didn't like her original style. She then botched the trial. Do we really want justices concentrating on the camera angles rather than the facts at hand and the arguments?
Television will not provide openness, it will take over the proceedings. Justices will become television personalities, fretting over their remarks and comments about how they'll play in Peoria. Do we want nine Lance Itos on the big bench?
Coming from someone who decries the reality TV star currently in the White House, we get a call to turn the Supreme Court into a reality TV show. WTF?
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2017 7:05 AM
> Why? Such a retro view.
Riiiiiight. "Retro," itself a word of circuitous fashion-mongering.
And you are a thoroughly Modern Milly!
It's weird how no matter how much evidence accrues that cameras and imagery and video convey only limited appreciation of distant events, people assume a shitty camera operated by the lowest bidder is as good as being there.
No. You wanna go to the Supreme Court, go to the Supreme Court. It's a little late to say you don't trust the transcripts.
Crid at June 16, 2017 7:15 AM
Small nit to pick, but wrong musical. That song is in the Oklahoma catalogue.
Conan the Grammarain at June 16, 2017 7:18 AM
Not a good analogy. Congressional hearings are used by the questioners to make self-serving political statements - soundbites for public consumption on the six-o'clock news or in political ads during the next campaign. Those hearings are not used to get at the truth, or any semblance of it.
We don't want the SCOTUS justices using their time to make self-serving political statements; we want them asking probing questions to get to the truth.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2017 7:30 AM
See Katzman v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue, 923 F.
Supp. 580, 588 (S.D.N.Y. 1996):
"The First Amendment requires that court proceedings be open to the public, and by extension the news media, absent the most clearly articulated and compelling reasons for closing them in a particular circumstance. It has long been recognized that "[w]hat transpires in the court room is public property," Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374, 67 S. Ct. 1249, 1254, 91 L. Ed. 1546 (1947), particularly in light of the unquestioned proposition, articulated by Justice Frankfurter, that "[o]ne of the demands of a democratic society is that the public should know what goes on in courts...." Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912, 920, 70 S. Ct. 252, 255, 94 L. Ed. 562 (1950) (denying cert. to 193 Md. 300, 67 A.2d 497 (1949)).
Our Court of Appeals has recognized that "there is an abundance of support in the cases for a constitutionally grounded public right of access to the courtroom." Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 22 (2d Cir.1985). In Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980), the Supreme Court for the first time "unequivocally h[e]ld[] that an arbitrary interference with access to [court proceedings] is an abridgement of the freedoms of speech and of the press protected by the first amendment." Id. at 583, 100 S. Ct. at 2830-31 (Stevens, J., concurring). The Supreme Court later held that the guarantee of public proceedings in criminal trials includes the voir dire process, Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984) and access to transcripts of proceedings. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 478 U.S. 1, 106 S. Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985). As the Richmond Newspapers Court noted, "throughout its evolution, the trial has been open to all who cared to observe," and such openness is essential to the perception of fairness in the administration of justice. Id. at 564-71, 104 S. Ct. at 2821-24. Openness carries with it the right to speak or print court proceedings or portions of them.
Moreover, in the context of the right of press access to the courtroom, there can no longer be a meaningful distinction between the print press and the electronic media."
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/923/580/1947078/
Snoopy at June 16, 2017 8:43 AM
Katzman v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue? That's a real thing? Sonofagun, it is. One of the better lawsuit titles, I must say. And in connection to that, and relevant to the topic, I came across this.
Cousin Dave at June 16, 2017 9:17 AM
> That song is in the Oklahoma
> catalogue.
Yes... You can tell from the album cover on the video.
Crid at June 16, 2017 9:33 AM
Yeah, I saw that after my post. I was too focused on the mixed metaphor with the Thoroughly Modern Millie reference and the Oklahoma song. Nice references to musicals there, by the way.
My dad was a fan of the old Broadway musicals on film, so I think I saw them all as a kid.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2017 9:58 AM
(Didn't know TMM was a musical)
Crid at June 16, 2017 12:14 PM
Put in the cameras. I want to see the grandstanding can't-be-fired politically-appointed Lords Of The Universe as they decide the fates of us lesser beings.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 16, 2017 1:16 PM
It started out as a musical movie and was made into a Broadway musical in the early oughts (2000s).
I may have misidentified it in including it with "the old Broadway musicals," but when I saw it as a kid, I thought it was just another stage musical that had been given the movie treatment. Dad enjoyed it, but he was a sucker for anything with Julie Andrews in it.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2017 1:18 PM
> I want to see the grandstanding
> can't-be-fired politically-
> appointed Lords Of The Universe
> as they decide the fates of us
> lesser beings.
So GO SEE THEM... Nothing's stopping you.
Watching television is not the same as "seeing" them.
Crid at June 16, 2017 1:58 PM
"So GO SEE THEM... Nothing's stopping you."
And nothing's stopping YOU from changing the channel.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 16, 2017 3:36 PM
"Watching television is not "witnessing" anything."
Ditto. You might still think you saw evidence in the OJ trial. You did not.
I suggest that the very function of the USSC is a mystery. You're not watching episodes of Law and Order.
Radwaste at June 16, 2017 4:24 PM
> And nothing's stopping YOU
> from changing the channel.
The problem isn't that I don't want to "see" them on teevee, the problem is that I don't want you to "see" them on teevee.
Crid at June 16, 2017 4:27 PM
"the problem is that I don't want you to "see" them on teevee."
And your mother wears Army boots, pal.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 17, 2017 11:49 AM
You meant combat boots.
Conan or someone straightened me out about that a few years ago.
Crid at June 18, 2017 1:59 AM
Leave a comment