Comments on: Should Cameras Be Allowed Into The SCOTUS?

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:22:36 +0000

I like the courtroom cartoons, simply because they are a kitchy part of Americana. Keep ‘em, like how they keep our currency green even though they are easier to counterfiet than multicolored notes.

By: bob in fl

bob in fl — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:44:34 +0000

I have mixed feelings about TV coverage of the Supreme Court. I understand Kennedy’s concern about sound bites. However, why should that be a problem when none of the Justices will never be running for an office again?
I would definitely oppose just any network to be able to film, because their commentators &/or the attorneys arguing cases would play to the cameras & to voters. Limiting coverage to C-span or PBS, without outside comments, sounds like a good idea. Commercial news outlets can still air their comments on separate programming, as they do now. The Justices would still be meeting in private to deliberate & draft. opinions, away from distractions. And we who wish to can become more knowledgeable about how SCOTUS works.

By: probligo

probligo — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:48:50 +0000

There is certainly one concern this brings to my mind.

The NZ High Court / Supreme Court system only hears appeals on matters of law rather than on matters of fact. As a result the proceedings tend to be (judging from my one attendance and commentary on many more from a mate who is now in the higher echelons of the legal profession) very dry and tedious affairs.

While that may affect the rating ability of broadcast from SCOTUS, it is not the central point of my concern.

That concern comes from the fact that by the time a case reaches the highest courts (unless it involves a declarative judgement) it has already been well heard and well debated in public. Most people with an interest will have formed fairly strong opinions based on the facts as broadcast and received.

I fail to see that there would be benefit to the population at large to watch and hear very learned counsel and judges (at least I hope that they are…) debating the meaning of the word “is” in the context of sexual peccadillo involving a room without corners…

.. if you follow my drift.

The interpretation of law does not require secrecy. It does require knowledge and abilities that far surpass those of the average man in the street.

The understanding of the consequences of that interpretation is for the people. If the consequences are not right, give rise to a “wrong” outcome, then it is the responsibility of the Law to recognise that and adapt.