Should Suprerme Court cases be broadcast on C-span?

[white_wolf]

We were talking about the SCOTUS in my class today and the professor mentioned that cameras were not allowed in any federal courts. I'm just wondering do you all think that C-span should be allowed in the Supreme Court since they make such important decisions? I do, of course I also am debating whether they should be elected or appointed.

[BzaDem]

1. You can already get a transcript of each oral argument within hours, and an audio recording within a

week.

The argument against video is that it would cause justices to play to sound bytes in high profile cases. I would prefer video, but I understand the argument against it.

I definitely do not think justices (or judges of any sort) should be elected, but I also don't think life terms are appropriate for Supreme Court justices. Perhaps there is a middle ground (such as a decade long appointment).

[white_wolf]

4. You can get audio?

I wasn't aware of that, the only time I've heard of where they let reporters even have audio during the case was Bush V. Gore. A decade term appointment would be good as long as the Justice could not appointed twice in a row. They have way too much power as is, we went over Federalist Paper #78 today and I gotta say when Hamilton said the Court have neither force nor will, I was thinking "bullshit!"

[Tx4obama]

6. Here's a link

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

You can click on the 'blue' numbers/link for each case.

[cynatnite]

2. This was said by David Souter....

The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body.


I think he got that right.

[live love laugh]

3. Yup that would be transparency at its best. nt

[cynatnite]

5. We already have transcripts of SCOTUS hearings...

we don't need cameras.

[Zambero]

7. Clarence Thomas should have his very own C-Span show

Mic him up and fix the camera on the "star". Begin the hearings. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Volume up or volume down, there'd be absolutely no difference in decibel level. A unique phenomena in the entire universe of TV broadcasting.

[rpannier]

9. You can hear him

All you have to do is listen to Scalia and that's Thomas as well.

[white_wolf]

10. Well, not always.

Just a few weeks ago he went against Scaliia on a case about death row appeals, I believe. Yeah, smart more Thomas disagree on the one case that makes you look like an even bigger jerk.

[rpannier]

8. I don't

I'm not interested in them preening for the cameras
I'm already unhappy with their nation hopping speech giving tours

[Unvanguard]

11. Your professor is wrong. Cameras are allowed in some federal courts.

The Ninth Circuit, for example, routinely broadcasts high-profile oral arguments.

I don't think cameras in the Supreme Court is a particularly good idea. There is transparency when it comes to substance already (you can get transcripts almost immediately and audio soon afterward); videotaping would open the potential for sound-bite reporting.

[white_wolf]

12. Ahh, its possible I simply heard him wrong.

It was early and I haven't slept well lately, either way thanks for clearing that up.