by James Oliphant
A clash between Congress and the Supreme Court could be coming, and unfortunately, it won’t be televised. Not even on Pay-Per-View.
But Supreme Court proceedings may soon be. The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday passed a bill that would permit cameras in the august chamber, which few Americans have ever seen. The bipartisan legislation would allow the justices to veto airing a specific argument if a majority believes the due process rights of one of the parties would be violated.
The justices historically have resisted any attempt to televise the workings of the third branch of government, fearing that the nuances of the often-complex arguments would be flattened by the power of the lens. (Although, honestly, it is quite a long leap from a debate over the application of Employee Retirement Income Security Act to the world of David E. Kelley, so they may not have all that much to fear.)
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. told the committee in 2005 he would keep an open mind on the issue and the senators appear to have seized on that. “The Supreme Court makes pronouncements on Constitutional and federal law that have direct impacts on the rights of Americans,” said one of the sponsors of the bill, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). “Those rights would be substantially enhanced by televising the oral arguments of the Court so that the public can see and hear the issues presented. With this information, the public would have insight into key issues and be better equipped to understand the impact of and reasons for the Court’s decisions.” Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin (D) is also a sponsor.
Could a C-SPAN channel devoted to the high court be far behind? If that happens, however, it had better line up some experts to fill the bulk of the air time. There’s but a handful of oral arguments a year, and they only last an hour. Might be better to get Doris Kearns Goodwin to start warming up in the bullpen now.
And if this all does come to pass, one word to the public at large: The justices are shorter than they look in the newspaper.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I just glossed over the story and saw that dick Turban durbin was for it, so I'm against it.
Nazis
Pol pot
Soviet Gulags
God-Bless our soldiers!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 14, 2007 11:56 PM
You might know the driveby media is suggesting having liberal Doris Kearns Goodwin narrating Supreme Court narratives. I guess she could weigh in on plagiarism. She is experienced in that area. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | December 15, 2007 9:57 AM
You might know the driveby media is suggesting having liberal Doris Kearns Goodwin narrating Supreme Court narratives. I guess she could weigh in on plagiarism. She is experienced in that area. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | December 15, 2007 9:57 AM
You might know the driveby media is suggesting having liberal Doris Kearns Goodwin narrating Supreme Court narratives. I guess she could weigh in on plagiarism. She is experienced in that area. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | December 15, 2007 9:57 AM
How about a trial?
(Pardon the pun.)
Posted by: Doug Zook | December 15, 2007 1:27 PM
just glossed over the story and saw that dick Turban durbin was for it, so I'm against it.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 14, 2007 11:56 PM
Paolo,
The great thing about Wingnut talking bumperstickers like you is that you eventually dry up and fall off the car.
The Republic Party is so pathetic and weak that they can't come up with a candidate who can even come close to beating Durbin in Illinois. They've already tried and FAILED miserably several times.
You Wingnuts better start enjoying your life as the MINORITY PARTY, because it's not going to change anytime soon.
PS - Where's that George Ryan guy at?, I haven't seen much of him lately and I'm getting worried.
Posted by: Jimmy Venom | December 15, 2007 2:20 PM
Paolo's comments make a great deal of sense and are to be expected. Any person who is right wing would not want the court, which has a majority of hardline conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy-maybe not hardline but conservative), to be open to more criticism. The best way for them to escape criticism would be lesser visibility. Television opens things up.
Personally, I find those with lifetime appointments in public positions, should be open to some degree of scrutiny. There has to be some challenge for them to do their job properly and serve the interests of justice. Fortunately they are all well educated and qualified for the most part. But increased visibility can only be a benefit, provided their effectiveness doesn't somehow get hindered by teh visibility.
Posted by: jerry h | December 16, 2007 12:32 AM
There are camera's in Congress. There is no reason why there can't be camera's in the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Lou | December 16, 2007 9:51 AM
It probably will be more entertaining than the 2007 version of Saturday Night Live.
Posted by: Terry | December 16, 2007 10:20 AM
I frankly don't see the point of bringing cameras to the Supreme Court. Sure, it might educate people with regard to the intricacies of the law. However, unlike the situation in which cameras are brought into trials, doing the same with the Supreme Court will not serve the purpose of insuring that public scrutiny will keep the court honest.
98% of the Court’s business is conducted in chambers, and not on the bench. The only thing the Court does on the bench is hear oral arguments – period. If the justices are concerned that remarks from the bench might leave them open to criticism, they will just clam up. In which case, fewer questions will be asked and answered, and what little value oral argument has as an intellectual dialogue or a tool for advocacy will simply vanish. How that makes things better than simply having news services in attendance is a mystery to me.
Posted by: John W. | December 16, 2007 5:58 PM