Bill to put TV cameras in the Supreme Court advances in the Senate

[mick e]

Being able to watch a dirigible explode on live TV doesn't change the fact that there is nothing that can be done to stop it from happening.

[August West]

I have no problem with recording these sessions to video. To me, it is a modern day transcript that is more revealing.

[cbelt3]

I truly HATE this idea.

Why ?

Because the n00z media will happily take little snippets and make the SCOTUS look pretty much however they want.

That sort of practice and C-SPAN turned Congress into a building filled with nothing more than sound bites. Reasonable discourse ? GONE. Ability to make a good point ? GONE.

Transcripts are appropriate... media can do what the want with that.

All of you have seen situations where two media outlets broadcast a story on the same event or speech, and it looks like two completely different things happened with completely different results.

Transparency is just fine. Hooray ! But when the transparent information is then filtered through crap-colored glasses before the American Public can see it... not so good.

[Grace62]

Historians are in agreement that the advent of c-span brought more dignity and substance to Senate proceedings. The House was rambunctious before and after, that's the nature of the beast.
Would you have really not wanted to see the Watergate hearings?


As for the media using "clips," you can do that with transcripts with too. When I read or listen to reports on the SCOTUS, they repeat very small parts of what was said, for effect. That already happens and it has not destroyed the court as far as I can tell nor caused great distortion on the public perception of what goes on.

If this should become law, I'm sure that the court will keep a very tight reign on what gets televised to protect the privacy of those before the court.
I think it's a good change, but we'll see what happens.

[Uncle Wig]

How is the privacy of those before the court an issue? It's already well known who argues there, and they routinely state their positions for the press on the steps of the courthouse.

When has transparency been an issue with the Supreme Court? (Really: it has not.)

How has televising courtroom trials enhanced anything about our judicial system? (Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court does not conduct trials). I don't believe it has. OJ Simpson's trial comes to mind, and that was certainly not a moment to be proud of.

The networks (read: Fox News, CNN and MSNBC) are not interested in anything other than their ratings. For them it's not about transparency or anything else.

[Grace62]

Uncle Wig wrote:
How is the privacy of those before the court an issue? It's already well known who argues there, and they routinely state their positions for the press on the steps of the courthouse.

When has transparency been an issue with the Supreme Court? (Really: it has not.)

How has televising courtroom trials enhanced anything about our judicial system? (Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court does not conduct trials). I don't believe it has. OJ Simpson's trial comes to mind, and that was certainly not a moment to be proud of.

The networks (read: Fox News, CNN and MSNBC) are not interested in anything other than their ratings. For them it's not about transparency or anything else.

"Washington, DC
Thursday, February 9, 2012

The Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting on televising U.S. Supreme Court proceedings. The committee considered a bi-partisan bill that will require the Supreme Court to televise its proceedings.

S. 1945 would permit television coverage of open sessions of the Court unless a majority of the justices votes to block coverage in specific cases where due process rights of the parties appearing before the court might be violated.

In a December 6, 2011 Judiciary Subcmte. hearing on the issue, Senators raised concerns that the law might provoke a constitutional showdown over separation of powers. At least one amendment is expected during today's business meeting.

Both lawmakers and media organizations, including C-SPAN, have asked the Court to televise the 5 ½ hours of oral argument on the President Obama’s health care law scheduled for the end of March."



This Senate hearing was televised on c-span, so you can watch the entire unedited proceeding, it addresses what you've mentioned above.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Bill-Would-...7428169-1/

State supreme courts have been televising their proceedings for years, without issue. The justices of the Supreme Court are public officials who make decisions that affect our lives very directly and personally. The public deserves access to the proceedings that is full, real time, and unedited.

[freeradical]

The Supreme Court will rule unanimously that this is unconstitutional.

[August West]

How has televising courtroom trials enhanced anything about our judicial system?

To me, it has boosted public awareness of the process.

We live in different times. People are attracted to video and dissuaded from written forms, I hear many postulate the disappearance of the printed book, because of the rise of video. If more exposure and transparency comes from televising the court, I think it possesses benefit.

[Pops]

freeradical wrote:
The Supreme Court will rule unanimously that this is unconstitutional.

Wouldn't they all have to recuse themselves?