• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should There be TV Coverage of Open Supreme Court Sessions?

Should There be TV Coverage of Open Supreme Court Sessions?

  • Total voters
    34
Redress

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,953
Reaction score
60,481
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Senate panel approves bill to televise high court - Yahoo! News

Proceedings of the Supreme Court, long kept out of the view of most Americans, would be televised under a bipartisan bill approved on Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Justices have long opposed TV cameras in their courtroom, saying they would be disruptive. But backers say such coverage would help provide public scrutiny.


On a vote of 11-7, the Judiciary Committee sent the measure to the full Senate for consideration. A similar bill was approved by the committee last year but failed to become law.

The bill would require TV coverage of all of the court's open sessions, unless the justices decide by a majority vote that it would violate due process rights of those before the panel.
Click to expand...

Would you support this being made into law? Should we be able to watch open SCOTUS sessions?
 
Of course we should. It's our government. The represented deserve to have confidence that due process is being upheld. People are allowed to sit in courthouses anyway, and it should stay that way so people can become and remain familiar with the rule of law.

Why would anyone want to keep this secret? Intimidation?

Last I checked, most people find C-SPAN boring anyway.
 
Yes, I think transparency is good for all three branches of the government.
 
There was a time I agreed 100% with Catabwa. I still think government transparency is a good thing but over the years I've watched Congress turn into a never-ending stage where politicians grand-stand more than ever because they know they're playing to an audience and every move they make is being recorded for posterity. It's makes you wonder how many bad side-effects have come from having cameras in places where only reporters were once allowed. I only hope that in the end the good and bad at least cancel out.

I voted yes anyway because I think the Justices are old enough and tempered enough to not have it affect their behavior. They also have excellent job security. ;)
 
Oral argument is fun if you like arcania in the law. I don't care if they televise it or not.....that's not where decisions are made, though they are fun to participate in.

Otherwise I can't imagine anyone being interested in watching, unless your favorite niece was arguing.
 
I'd watch, if for no other reason than to see of those stiff-lipped roboticons have a human side. After all, their decisions control the direction of our country, and thus our lives. That's a lot of responsibility for a handful of black-robed partisians who brown-nosed presidents for a coveted place on the bench.
 
Not only should it be televised they should also have to state on televisions exactly how and why something violates or does not violate the US constition and what founding documents lead them to their conclusions.
 
Not at all. I have tried cases in state and federal courts to juries and to judges and I have argued before the Federal and state court of appeals. There is no doubt in my mind that over the top BS is ratcheted up when lawyers are playing to juries and even worse when playing to the press.

Most supreme court justices DID NOT brown nose their way onto the court. Kagan yes. That's about the extent of it. Nixon had never met Rehnquist and said something about getting that smart "jewish guy RHINEGOLD" or "Renchburg"
(Rehnquist was a lutheran)

Roberts was well regarded as the top supreme court litigator in the USA when he was put on the court of appeals by Bush and after the Miers debacle, Alito was a sound choice given his long term of service and his stellar work as a US Attorney.
 
Redress said:
Senate panel approves bill to televise high court - Yahoo! News



Would you support this being made into law? Should we be able to watch open SCOTUS sessions?
Click to expand...

We should be able to watch ALL SCOTUS sessions unless it is going to show classified information. If a reporter gets disruptive then remove THAT reporter. Don't punish the whole because of the actions of a few. SCOTUS often has the country in the palm of thier hands and we should have a right to make sure that they are doing thier job correctly just like we do (or should be able to do) with any member of Congress, Senate, or POTUS.
 
jamesrage said:
Not only should it be televised they should also have to state on televisions exactly how and why something violates or does not violate the US constition and what founding documents lead them to their conclusions.
Click to expand...

Umm, they do that when they issue their rulings ...
 
megaprogman said:
Umm, they do that when they issue their rulings ...
Click to expand...

Seeing how some of them consider foreign laws regarding a US constitutional issue it would interesting to see them do that in front of a camera.
 
jamesrage said:
Not only should it be televised they should also have to state on televisions exactly how and why something violates or does not violate the US constition and what founding documents lead them to their conclusions.
Click to expand...

This is in the opinion, james, and widely reproduced.
 
I could see how it could cause problems. Honestly, though, as someone who has read Supreme Court decisions, I have to say I doubt many people would watch either way. They tend to be rather long and dry reading. As James's post above, trust me they go into great detail when it comes to how they make their decisions. Even Justices who I disagree with usually make compelling arguments.
 
Last edited:
I want to say yes. I like the idea of transparency.

On the other hand, I can't think of anybody less telegenic than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
I could see how it could cause problems. Honestly, though, as someone who has read Supreme Court decisions, I have to say I doubt many people would watch either way. They tend to be rather long and dry reading. As James's post above, trust me they go into great detail when it comes to how they make their decisions. Even Justices who I disagree with usually make compelling arguments.
Click to expand...

I can think of two demographics that would watch. Lawyers and other judges. Another demographic that would watch are the people who has a stake (or thinks they do) in the outcome of a particular trial. Examples: Gay marriage, Obamacare. I would definitely watch those myself.
 
Redress said:
Senate panel approves bill to televise high court - Yahoo! News



Would you support this being made into law? Should we be able to watch open SCOTUS sessions?
Click to expand...

No.

Televised court rooms are already media circuses. I don't think the Supreme Court should be one as well.

Besides, there's already public scrutiny in that there are transcripts and audio recordings available to the public. I don't see how allowing lawyers and the Justices to make spectacles of themselves is conducive to anything.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
I could see how it could cause problems. Honestly, though, as someone who has read Supreme Court decisions, I have to say I doubt many people would watch either way. They tend to be rather long and dry reading. As James's post above, trust me they go into great detail when it comes to how they make their decisions. Even Justices who I disagree with usually make compelling arguments.
Click to expand...

I would make the argument that one reason why their arguments remain compelling and why their decisions are rather long and dry is because of the lack of televised sessions.
 
I'd be interested to see the ratings for said sessions, sadly I'd be willing to bet they'd score well below most useless crap on television.
 
samsmart said:
I would make the argument that one reason why their arguments remain compelling and why their decisions are rather long and dry is because of the lack of televised sessions.
Click to expand...
You may very well be right. I don't see what good could come from this, but I do see several problems.
 
They already release audio. What more is there to be gained by adding an opportunity for politics and theater?
 
No, and I don't think TV cameras should be allowed in any court room. The press can totally bias a jury and the mob should have no involvement in court proceedings.
 
I think the celebrity that TV brings with it is damaging to the credibility of anyone who appears on it.
 
On the one hand I think, I don't want court being turned into a spectator sport and wierd things happen to people when they're put in front of Cameras, one of the reasons why people seem more real in movies and TV shows then they do in reality TV. Because actors are trained to act like normal people in front of Cameras... real people aren't.

On the other, in terms of allowing greater transparency I'm in favour of it.
 
Why not televise it and let the public vote on the outcome instead of nine old people? That would get more people interested in the show.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom