Comments (8) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Court TV: Justices pressured on ObamaCare
Tools
Updated: Feb. 8, 2012 | 8:25 a.m.
From March 26 to 28, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will hear 5½ hours of oral argument, spread over three days, on a matter that affects every American and may influence the 2012 elections: the challenge of 26 states to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate in ObamaCare.
But Americans won't be allowed to watch the proceedings, at all. The high court has given no indication it will relent on its ban of live courthouse broadcasts.
An argument often put forward for barring television cameras from court proceedings is the fear that lawyers might preen, strut and engage in other theatrics designed to impress the audience watching from home, rather than focusing on the subject at hand in a more serious manner.
But that's not the concern the court has expressed most often, of late. Rather, the justices appear to be shy.
Justice David Souter, who retired in 2009, said at a 1996 House hearing, "The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."
Other justices to raise concern about cameras include Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justices Kennedy and Thomas said at a 2007 House hearing that they feared cameras would change the dynamic among the justices and strip them of their anonymity.
"There's something sick about making entertainment about real people's legal problems," Justice Scalia said in a 2005 interview with CNBC. "I don't like it in the lower courts and I don't particularly like it in the Supreme Court."
Yes, some decorum is in order. No one would want the Supreme Court to hear cases in a ballpark, with partisan cheering encouraged along with organ interludes and vendors peddling hot dogs.
But the desire of a justice to be able to go to the grocery store without being recognized is not sufficient reason to justify turning the high court into a technology-free zone, barring spectators from using recording devices, telephones and cameras, which is precisely what they've done.
Justices are now considering requests from a dozen lawmakers and more than 30 media organizations seeking live coverage access. Petitioners contend there's a strong national interest in watching live arguments over an issue that touches everyone and affects the economy and presidential election. In fact, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is pushing legislation requiring the court to allow cameras unless a majority of justices conclude coverage would violate a party's rights to due process.
Of course, because the branches of government are supposed to be separate and equal, it's not clear the court would pay any attention to such an edict.
But television has been a part of American culture for two generations -- live radio for nearly a century. This is not a "passing phase." There was also a day when important decisions of government were committed to sheepskin scrolls, and then carried via slave galley to the various regional capitals to be read aloud in the town square.
Would that be traditional enough?
Change can be deliberate and sensible. But change must come, nevertheless.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
." There was also a day when important decisions of government were committed to sheepskin scrolls, and then carried via slave galley to the various regional capitals to be read aloud in the town square. Really!!! The fact that the Supreme Court wants to retain a little decorum and dignity in their procedings is being compared to images of of Roman slave galleys. Can anyone who remembers such high points in the history of the legal system like th OJ and Menendez brothers trials really look me in the eye and say that televised high profile cases are good for the legal system. That the ability of the justices to be able to screen out all of the #^*@! and only consider the constitutional issues is a bad thing.
because the branches of government are supposed to be separate and equal, it's not clear the court would pay any attention to such an edict.
Of course it shouldn't.
But then again, the Legislature and the Governor should not pay any attention to the Courts, either.
PBS just ran a survey & interviewed "live" 6 Judges from various levels of the Courts - from various states - who now have cameras in the Court Rooms - and to a person, said it bascially had no-negitive-effect (whatsoever) and after a while, they even forget they (cameras) are there! Any argument agai,nst placing cameras in the Supreme Court - from any of the Judges (and several I like) are misguided, uninformed, outdated, elietest & denies the American people "transparency" in the way our Courts operate AND hear cases. ALERT! Be assured that any lawyer who elects to show off - and/or behave in a manner disrespectul to the Court - would be immediately taken to the woodshed!! This is another example of "why" everyone is so sick & tired of our 3 branches of government - because of both arrogance & a total disconnect between government and the "people"! We're adults and absent of these Supreme Court Judges opinions......what are they afraid of??
Hey ed, what about George Soros? And his minions?
Please no...reality TV is bad enough.....without watching real judges do their job....people would expect them to act like reality court judges
ObamaScare dictates birth control policies for Catholics but muslims are exempt. What's up with that? Cameras are everywhere else in our daily lives, why would any judge be fearful of transparency?
This would be a way for big money interests like the Koch Brothers to buy ads around the telecast to influence the outcome. Cameras do not belong in any court, they taint the process.
Medicare taxes are Federal and Constitutional. Hutchinson is wasting the taxpayer's time. Furthermore,as Howard Dean in Vermont proved, mandates don't matter anyway because the Healthcare system is already highly controlled by the Government. Medicare, Medicaid, VA, military, Federal and other government employees amount to 50% of insured people. Don't forget that the Federal government bails out hospitals like UMC every year.
What's Thomas worried about? He never says a dam*ed thing.