This interesting little tidbit of info was in the latest mailing from Grassfire.
"a new bill in Congress…would require the U.S. Supreme Court to televise its public sessions — in essence creating a Supreme Court 'C-Span'. I believe this is a great way to bring some level of public accountability to the courts."
That sounds pretty cool. I'll keep an eye on this and let you folks know if anything comes of it.
Funky Dung
Comments 11
Public accountability is exactly what the Supreme Court is NOT supposed to have. The whole reason for lifetime terms on the Court is to guard against the justices being influenced by the ideas of the general populace. They are to interpret the Constitution, not serve as representatives of the citizenry–that's what Congress is for.
If there were such a television channel, I would watch it, because I'm just a dork like that, but calling for "public accountability" from the Court is contrary to everything the Founders sought to do in setting up the Judiciary the way they did.
+0
Posted 10 Oct 2005 at 7:45 pm ¶I have to agree with Layla. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be influenced by the public, nor is it supposed to be accountable to the public. It's supposed to be accountable to the Constitution.
+0
Posted 10 Oct 2005 at 8:38 pm ¶I agree with both of you that the SC shouldn't be swayed by public "accountability". I just think it'd be neat to see the machinations of the nation's highest court. Such a TV channel would be a cool tool for educators.
+0
Posted 10 Oct 2005 at 9:16 pm ¶I'd be interested in it, but if Chief Justice Roberts were to tell me that it would disrupt proceedings and perhaps hurt professional conduct,I'd say no.
+0
Posted 10 Oct 2005 at 10:37 pm ¶The danger of cameras is that people act differently when they know a camera is on — people play to the cameras. We don't need Supreme Court justices, or lawyers arguing before the Court for that matter, playing to the camera and trying to develop a "fan club."
If you want to know how the Supreme Court works, you can read all about it — granted, not live. There are transcripts of oral arguments that you can read at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html
I'm with Layla — I'd watch such a channel, too, but I don't think it's a good idea.
+0
Posted 10 Oct 2005 at 11:58 pm ¶Justice Scalia talked about cameras in an interview this morning: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9649724/
(He says, "Not a chance."
+0
Posted 11 Oct 2005 at 12:05 am ¶Put me in the "not a chance" column.
Sure, it would be fascinating, but with more (and more convenient) exposure, there would inevitably be many more folks inclined to express their indignation over obscure legalities that even trained lawyers fail to grasp at times.
But man, wouldn't it be cool?
+0
Posted 11 Oct 2005 at 8:51 am ¶I agree (to some extent) with the comments about accountability and the court, and I've certainly seen first hand how a camera can change (for the worse) the entire demeanor of a public meeting.
On the other hand, I don't expect cameras would bring much accountability to the justices. Frankly, they can do and say what they please, with or without cameras, since they do not need to be re-elected.
+0
Posted 11 Oct 2005 at 1:51 pm ¶Lightwave makes a good point that cameras wouldn't really make the justices accountable to the public, since their appointments are for lifetime terms. It's not as if they're going to be concerned about the cameras hurting their chances for re-election.
I think there is some way through which the justices can be impeached, but I think this is even more difficult than impeaching the President.
Eric, I agree with you that it would be cool to be able to see what's going on. And it would also be a good educational thing. I think my biggest concern would be that the public would influence the court too much.
+0
Posted 11 Oct 2005 at 11:55 pm ¶All their rulings are posted on the Supreme Court webpage. That's already more information than I can mine.
+0
Posted 12 Oct 2005 at 6:05 am ¶There's also the chance that we'd be surprised to find out that it's actually dead boring and not particularly informative. I imagine there was the same hoopla over C-SPAN when it first came out.
+0
Posted 13 Oct 2005 at 8:33 am ¶Post a Comment