Not surprisingly, Court TV's CEO likes the idea of televising arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States.Personally, I have never really understood the adamant opposition of federal judges to opening courtrooms to television audiences. Court's have sanctions available to them to make sure that the press behave themselves and we have allowed camera's in court in my state for many years without ill effects.
Federal courts remain the last government bastion of resistance to 21st Century sunshine illuminating their proceedings.
Its a shame really.
Thanks to the Washington Post for the link.
1 comment:
Received this comment from HR
The most legitimate concern that has been voiced (I think by Scalia) is that the press is not going to show the public the workings of the SCT in any meaningful way.
In a handful of cases, they will pick out sound-bites (probably of Scalia making someone very uncomfortable) and that is the impression that the public will get of the workings of the SCT.
Also, the oral argument represents a small portion of the decision-making process. (Some may think the least important aspect; the local court here in Riverside, California, for example, actively coerced people into waiving their right to oral argument -- I was one of them -- until they were chastised by the CA SCT.)
These two reasons, plus the fact that the Justices enjoy their relative anonymity, serve as sufficient justification to keep the cameras out.
Releasing the audiotapes in more prompt fashion would be a good thing. As to cameras in the lower courts, including yours, other than few legal nerds (myself included), who really cares?
Post a Comment