Cameras at the Supreme Court:
Justice Souter famously said, "over my dead body." But when he is no longer a Justice, will the idea get new life?
http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb :
I hope it will get a new life. I've never been convinced by the arguments against it.
5.1.2009 7:24pm
John Moore (www):
Maybe he has to be dead first, like he said ;-)

It would be great to have cameras there.
5.1.2009 7:29pm
Joe Kowalski (mail):
Heck, I would be tickled pink just with more same-day audio releases and still frame (would likely have to be non-flash) photos.
5.1.2009 7:51pm
Realist Liberal:
I don't expect it to gain much traction. While Souter was clearly against it (it was really the only thing he talked publicly about), he was definitely not the only one. Scalia has made comments about being against it because of the inevitable bad reporting that will come out of it and the use of ridiculous small clips. As a law nerd and SCOTUS junky, I would love it but I understand his concerns.
5.1.2009 8:03pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Because one doesn't generally see "in camera" proceedings at the Supreme Court? ;-)
5.1.2009 8:09pm
CDU (mail) (www):
I'm with Joe on the audio releases. The precedent has clearly been established and I don't see any reason to limit to "important" cases.
5.1.2009 8:22pm
Hadur:
The common wisdom is that Scalia and Souter are the two who are most against it.
5.1.2009 8:30pm
drunkdriver:
They'd lose a lot of privacy. Most of them are not recognizable to the general public, who could neither name them nor pick them out of a lineup.
5.1.2009 8:37pm
RKV (mail):
They should lose a lot of privacy. We're paying their salaries and frankly, they're underperforming. The next time one of the Supes decides to put her head down for a little nappy-poo during oral arguments, they ought to get impeached! Time to end lifetime appointments. Not sure what the right number is, but when Supes get senile and embarrassing like Douglas they ought to go. And Douglas should have gone much sooner than he did, ditto Fortas.
5.1.2009 8:55pm
King Mob (mail):
I've asked this question to Ginsburg before and she also agrees with Souter. So, I don't think cameras are in the Supreme Court's near future.
5.1.2009 9:13pm
JP22 (mail) (www):
If I were a justice, I'd be against it. Audio is great. But cameras IMO invite showboating, grandstanding, etc. We all know how lawyers can be. :-P Plus you'd have people analyzing the justices' facial expressions, gestures, and so on, in an effort to detect one prejudice or another.
5.1.2009 9:27pm
Tim H. (mail):
I hope not...it'd probably be a c-span redux...but just think if the court tv type folks got a hold of it...yikes
5.1.2009 9:51pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

but just think if the court tv type folks got a hold of it...yikes

Or Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert
5.1.2009 10:23pm
Allan (mail):
The Senate should not affirm anyone against cameras in the courtroom. Just do that five times and ... it will be done.

Prediction? 2025?
5.1.2009 10:48pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
If I had to choose I would rather see the district courts forced to accept webcasting. Way more gets handled there, gets little visibility and the questions are often decided on the spot.

Given that the only work product of SCOTUS is already published I don't think video would add as much as it would for the lower courts.
5.2.2009 12:39am
PC:
They'd lose a lot of privacy. Most of them are not recognizable to the general public, who could neither name them nor pick them out of a lineup.

They work for us so they only have limited privacy in their official duties. And thanks to this timely example, apparently in their private lives too.

Why is it people in power always get upset when the same standards they apply to the little people are used on them?
5.2.2009 1:27am
Perseus (mail):
The next time one of the Supes decides to put her head down for a little nappy-poo during oral arguments, they ought to get impeached!

The next time a student in the back of the lecture hall decides to put his head down for a little nappy-poo, he ought to be expelled.
5.2.2009 4:27am
MasterOfNine:
The Court could be forced to telecast/webcast video by an act of Congress, as it is within Congress' power.
5.2.2009 6:48am
FormerStudent:
I hope not.
5.2.2009 7:43am
Hadur:


The next time a student in the back of the lecture hall decides to put his head down for a little nappy-poo, he ought to be expelled.


See, this is why the safe move is to just skip class in the first place!
5.2.2009 8:28am
OldEasterner:
I'm against same-day video of the SC for all the mentioned reasons.

Why don't the justices just keep recordings (even from themselves) until the decision is released? Then the story would be the decision, and only academics (mostly) would be interested in the oral arguments.

At argument time, the lawyers audience is the justices and it would be silly to grandstand, and the justices don't yet know how the vote will go, so granstanding could backfire for them too.
5.2.2009 10:01am
Soronel Haetir (mail):
One thing video would do however is make it much more clear who is speaking. The few times I've listened to the audio I've had a great deal of difficulty with that.

Not that video would help me personally on that front since I'm blind, but I could see it being useful to others.
5.2.2009 10:16am
Robert West (mail) (www):
The Court could be forced to telecast/webcast video by an act of Congress, as it is within Congress' power.

It's really not clear that it is within Congressional power, and a Supreme Court which were sufficiently against it could come up with a rationale by which it isn't.

Which is to say: Congress would be provoking a Constitutional crisis if it passed such an act, and is therefore not likely to do so, unless it believes the Supreme Court will acquiesce.
5.2.2009 11:01am
rosetta's stones:
Not sure if cameras are a good idea, but the Bush v. Gore proceeding was a must-hear. It was quite short, 30 minutes or so as I recall. And very amusing.

They brought in the Florida gumshoe, as his county was part of the question. Poor sap, started off with some "Four score and 20-years ago..." nonsense, and the judges cut him right off, couldn't get satisfaction from him, and proceeded to discuss amongst clearly the only people they could get satisfaction from... themselves.

After his allotted few minutes were all used up, Rehnquist returned to him (I'm picturing here a sideways, squinty-eyed, inquisitional staredown.) "Mr. Gumshoe, your time has ended, and you really haven't had a chance to say very much, so I'll grant you a couple extra minutes if you need it." The guy recognized the moment, and declined. Poor sap, it was his big chance, the World Series, and he took 3 called strikes.

Then, Tribe got up to pontificate... same treatment... they tore right in on him. He got confused on the judges' names a couple times, enough so you noticed it. A few minutes later, Scalia deigns to join the questioning, and precedes his questioning with the helpful note: "Uh, Mr. Tribe... I'm Scalia." The whole room busted up laughing.

Cameras might be OK, maybe tape-delayed like somebody else mentioned.
5.2.2009 11:05am
sock:
I'm against it. It moves the Court away from it's proper function and more toward another political game. The last thing we need around here is another dog and pony show.
5.2.2009 3:38pm
Jeff Walden (www):
I agree with Joe Kowalski. While I'm not necessarily opposed to video, it's clearly a different beast from audio, and video offers much less marginal benefit over audio than audio does over a transcript. Regarding same-day audio, I don't see how it could be unacceptable. What's the concern? It's surely not out-of-context risk, for if that's the concern, why is same-day audio released only for precisely the most controversial cases that are most likely to be quoted out of context? If out-of-context use were a real concern for audio, I would think same-day audio would be available in precisely the opposite situations of where it's now available.

Incidentally, if I could ask only two questions of Scalia, something relating to this would absolutely be one of them; I'd love regularly-released same-day audio. (The other would be how a textualist and originalist could possibly believe that exercise of an unenumerated power that is the clear, omitted counterpart to an enumerated power could be Proper under the Necessary and Proper clause, as he held in Gonzales v. Raich. The same goes to a somewhat lesser extent for Necessary, for that matter -- a regulation becoming more difficult to enforce due to a state law is not the same as a regulation becoming impossible to enforce due to a state law.)
5.2.2009 10:33pm
Curt Fischer:
Do you think the justices would be OK with even real-time video of arguments, as long as the cameras were on the bench, facing outwards, so that all of the justices were obscured from view?
5.3.2009 11:35am
dll111:

rosetta's stones:
Not sure if cameras are a good idea, but the Bush v. Gore proceeding was a must-hear. It was quite short, 30 minutes or so as I recall. And very amusing.

Then, Tribe got up to pontificate... same treatment... they tore right in on him. He got confused on the judges' names a couple times, enough so you noticed it. A few minutes later, Scalia deigns to join the questioning, and precedes his questioning with the helpful note: "Uh, Mr. Tribe... I'm Scalia." The whole room busted up laughing.

Cameras might be OK, maybe tape-delayed like somebody else mentioned.


You've misremembered, as Roger Clemens said. The incident you attribute to Tribe actually happened in the real Bush v. Gore, the final iteration of the case, not Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (or whatever it was titled). Tribe didn't argue that one for Gore, David Boies did. Ted Olson argued for Bush. Joseph Klock was the Florida lawyer (I believe representing Kathrine Harris), and he was the one who made all the mistakes. He called Stevens Justice Brennan, who'd been dead for years, then called Souter Justice Breyer. Souter told him to "cut that out." Then, when Scalia asked him a question he said, "Mr. Klock, I'm Scalia." It was hilarious.

It's also 1:30 minute argument, not a short one.
5.5.2009 1:18pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.