02-10-2012, 12:50 AM
A very positive step towards transparency.
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/201...fpnewsfeed
"The Supreme Court of the United States could be coming soon to a small screen near you. A remarkably short bill that would amend the U.S. Code to allow Supreme Court hearings to be broadcast live on national TV passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today, with members voting 11 to 7 in favor of introducing the bill to the rest of the Senate.
This still has a long way to becoming law — a markup hearing has yet to be scheduled, followed by a floor vote, as the Hill reported. Even if it were to pass all that and have the President to sign it into law, the language does allow the Supreme Court to refuse cameras into the courtroom in certain cases, when 5 of the 9 Justices vote that doing so “would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties,” involved, i.e. in a case where anonymity needs to be protected.
But the vote in the House Judiciary Committee does move the Court a lot closer to being televised, a paradigm shift in the nation’s ongoing legal drama that’s been long clamored for by lawmakers, TV networks and transparency advocates.
The idea has taken on a heightened sense of urgency as the Supreme Court nears March 26, the day that oral arguments are scheduled to begin in the case over whether the nation’s new healthcare plan is Constitutional - in particular the so-called “individual mandate.”"
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/201...fpnewsfeed
"The Supreme Court of the United States could be coming soon to a small screen near you. A remarkably short bill that would amend the U.S. Code to allow Supreme Court hearings to be broadcast live on national TV passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today, with members voting 11 to 7 in favor of introducing the bill to the rest of the Senate.
This still has a long way to becoming law — a markup hearing has yet to be scheduled, followed by a floor vote, as the Hill reported. Even if it were to pass all that and have the President to sign it into law, the language does allow the Supreme Court to refuse cameras into the courtroom in certain cases, when 5 of the 9 Justices vote that doing so “would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties,” involved, i.e. in a case where anonymity needs to be protected.
But the vote in the House Judiciary Committee does move the Court a lot closer to being televised, a paradigm shift in the nation’s ongoing legal drama that’s been long clamored for by lawmakers, TV networks and transparency advocates.
The idea has taken on a heightened sense of urgency as the Supreme Court nears March 26, the day that oral arguments are scheduled to begin in the case over whether the nation’s new healthcare plan is Constitutional - in particular the so-called “individual mandate.”"
