Senator Arlen Specter Introduces 'Cameras in the Courtroom' Legislation

[classicman2]

http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=867&Month=1&Year=2007

Washington, D.C. - Today, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation that will require the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of open Supreme Court proceedings, unless a majority of the Justices determine that the due process rights of one or more litigant would be violated. The legislation will open the Supreme Court’s doors so that more Americans can see the process by which the Court reaches critical decisions of law that affect this country and everyday Americans.

The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Russell Feingold (D-Wiss.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas).

“The Supreme Court makes pronouncements on Constitutional and federal law that have direct impacts on the rights of Americans,” stated Specter. “Those rights would be substantially enhanced by televising the oral arguments of the Court so that the public can see and hear the issues presented. With this information, the public would have insight into key issues and be better equipped to understand the impact of and reasons for the Court’s decisions.”

Senator Specter chaired a committee hearing on November 9, 2005 to address whether the Supreme Court proceedings should be televised. He also solicited the opinions of now-Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito during their confirmation hearings. Chief Justice Roberts said at the time that he would keep an open mind on the issue. Justice Alito stated that as a circuit judge he voted to permit televised proceedings in the Third Circuit.
________

Violation of Separation of Powers Doctrine?

[Red Dog]

Nay.

I really don't see the need for it. Very very few watch the legislature in action. Fewer would watch this, and they would also not be able to comprehend it. Plus same-day audio recordings are already available. Is a visual necessary?

In reality, what goes on behind the scenes (in the chambers, between the clerks, and in the conferences) is far more important (just like in the other branches).

[classicman2]

My problem is that it increase 'posturing' in the court as it has in the House & the Senate.

[al_bundy]

and it will open up stupid comments by partisans who will question why some justices are asking certain questions

[Lord Rick]

Bad idea. I suspect this is an attempt by the Legislative Branch to intimidate the Judicial Branch.

[Red Dog]

and it will open up stupid comments by partisans who will question why some justices are asking certain questions


Not to mention those justices who rarely ask questions. There will surely be members of media who will take this to mean that said justice isn't intelligent enough to serve on the highest court.

Speaking of the Court, I am looking forward to reading Jan Crawford Greenburg's new book out: Supreme Conflict. It has gotten excellent reviews.

I am also looking forward to PBS' 2-part series on the Court which airs the next 2 Wednesdays from 9-11. Here's a preview:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07030/757785-237.stm

[CRM114]

Of course there should be cameras. All of the federal government should be open to scrutiny by its citizens.

[eXcentris]

No offense but unless it's Law & Order, Judge Judy or a high profile trial involving a celebrity, who is going to watch? Sounds silly to me. Actually, I believe that cameras in courtrooms are idiotic period.

[classicman2]

Then why not have cameras in closed committees of the Congress when classified documents are being discussed?

That's not a sound argument.

[CRM114]

No offense but unless it's Law & Order, Judge Judy or a high profile trial involving a celebrity, who is going to watch? Sounds silly to me. Actually, I believe that cameras in courtrooms are idiotic period.

Uh, who watches CSPAN and CSPAN2?

[CRM114]

Then why have cameras in closed committees of the Congress when classified documents are being discussed?

That's not a sound argument.

Of course there are situtations where confidential executive sessions would be held. The arguments for and against an issue of the court should be recorded - we have the technology and I'm sure CSPAN would happily oblige.

[Red Dog]

Of course there should be cameras. All of the federal government should be open to scrutiny by its citizens.


What takes place at oral arguments that you don't already have access to? There are written transcripts and same-day audio recordings (sometimes, like in Bush v. Gore, live audio) already available to the public.

The written opinions available to all as well. Hell, I plead with people to read opinions before rendering their opinion, and that's a fruitless endeavor. What good are cameras going to do if 99% of the country isn't even reading the opinions.

[eXcentris]

Uh, who watches CSPAN and CSPAN2?

Probably 4 people, including c-man. :)

[classicman2]

Specter is noted for coming up with some silly ideas. Remember back during the impeachment when he brought up something about the King's Law as grounds for impeachment? ;)

There must be something in the water in PA. :)

[CRM114]

What takes place at oral arguments that you don't already have access to? There are written transcripts and same-day audio recordings (sometimes, like in Bush v. Gore, live audio) already available to the public.

The written opinions available to all as well. Hell, I plead with people to read opinions before rendering their opinion, and that's a fruitless endeavor. What good are cameras going to do if 99% of the country isn't even reading the opinions.

I'm sure you know the answer to your question. People do not want to read or listen to audio tapes. Maybe people would be more interested in the opinions if they could see the arguments?

I ask you - WHY audio and not video? Is this the 1970's?

[classicman2]

Most of the real work in congress is not shown on CSPAN.

[CRM114]

I have yet to hear a meaningful argument against cameras.

[CRM114]

Most of the real work in congress is not shown on CSPAN.

OK, so only video tape what the court currently audio tapes. Its not that revolutionary.

[classicman2]

I have yet to hear a meaningful argument against cameras.


It would most assuredly create more 'posturing' in the court as it has done with cameras in the House & the Senate.

There are excuses for posturing in the House & the Senate - they're politicians. Justices of the SC aren't.

I also have a problem with the legislative branch telling the judicial branch how to conduct their business.

[CRM114]

It would most assuredly create more 'posturing' in the court as it has done with cameras in the House & the Senate.

There are excuses for posturing in the House & the Senate - they're politicians. Justices of the SC aren't.

I also have a problem with the legislative branch telling the judicial branch how to conduct their business.

Your final point has validity but not much.

[Red Dog]

I have yet to hear a meaningful argument against cameras.


I have yet to hear a meaningful argument for them.

If people can't be bothered to read or listen, then I don't see any reason for video.

[VinVega]

I think it would be interesting to see. If it's such a disaster, they can always be removed.

[Red Dog]

I think it would be interesting to see. If it's such a disaster, they can always be removed.


Watch America & The Courts on CSPAN Saturdays at 7. They frequently air recent important SCt arguments audio with a picture of the person talking on the screen. The actual video wouldn't be much different.

I'd bet you would lose interest rather quickly. ;)

[CRM114]

I have yet to hear a meaningful argument for them.

If people can't be bothered to read or listen, then I don't see any reason for video.

:lol: I'm sure they said the same thing before CSPAN.

[CRM114]

Watch America & The Courts on CSPAN Saturdays at 7. They frequently air recent important SCt arguments audio with a picture of the person talking on the screen. The actual video wouldn't be much different.

I'd bet you would lose interest rather quickly. ;)

So who cares if we take that next wacky step and show the picture MOVING? Booga booga!!!!

All I see is lame, antiquated thinking by government officials who wish not to be scrutinized.

[Red Dog]

And how many people watch CSPAN? :lol:

Were there audio recordings of Congressional floor debates prior to CSPAN? Were they readily available like SCt recordings are on the internet. If the internet wasn't around, the argument for cameras and/or live radio coverage would be much stronger.

[Lord Rick]

I have yet to hear a meaningful argument against cameras.

Well, for one, Fox News will edit the videotape down to a few moments to make certain judges look bad, then will shreik ad nauseum about "activist judges" and we'll get O'Reilly blabbering on and on.

They'll use this to shape public opinion, as they do with everything else.

[Red Dog]

So who cares if we take that next wacky step and show the picture MOVING? Booga booga!!!!

All I see is lame, antiquated thinking by government officials who wish not to be scrutinized.


:lol:

You don't think the SCt Justices are scrutinized currently? They put their opinions out there in writing for all to see, and experts debate the pros and cons of their arguments to the nth degree.

Hell, a number of them aren't shy about being interviewed on television nowadays. That's a major change from the past.

[Red Dog]

Well, for one, Fox News will edit the videotape down to a few moments to make certain judges look bad, then will shreik ad nauseum about "activist judges" and we'll get O'Reilly blabbering on and on.

They'll use this to shape public opinion, as they do with everything else.


You can be certain that will happen - both ways.

[CRM114]

And how many people watch CSPAN? :lol:

Were there audio recordings of Congressional floor debates prior to CSPAN? Were they readily available like SCt recordings are on the internet. If the internet wasn't around, the argument for cameras and/or live radio coverage would be much stronger.

So now we are basing decisions on the openness of government on ratings?

[CRM114]

Well, for one, Fox News will edit the videotape down to a few moments to make certain judges look bad, then will shreik ad nauseum about "activist judges" and we'll get O'Reilly blabbering on and on.

They'll use this to shape public opinion, as they do with everything else.

So? They do the same thing with the congress and the country has no fallen.

[CRM114]

:lol:

You don't think the SCt Justices are scrutinized currently? They put their opinions out there in writing for all to see, and experts debate the pros and cons of their arguments to the nth degree.

Hell, a number of them aren't shy about being interviewed on television nowadays. That's a major change from the past.

Time to remove their insulation from reality.

[Lord Rick]

"The people should not see the production of laws nor sausages." - Otto von Bismarck

:lol:

[classicman2]

Introducing cameras in the SC is one way to get rid of Scalia. ;)

[CRM114]

Introducing cameras in the SC is one way to get rid of Scalia. ;)

Exactly. Irritating Scalia is one excellent reason.

[classicman2]

Irritating - maybe

the most intelligent member of the court - probably

The Constitution can sometimes be irritating.

[Breakfast with Girls]

I think anything that makes the Supreme Court more accessible to the general public is a bad thing. Audio--fine. But television news would love to have copies of that to air on controversial decisions, for commentators to take things out of context or make a particular justice a target, etc.

For what it's worth, I think cameras in the Senate and House are wrong, too. Politicians do enough posturing as it is.

[al_bundy]

So? They do the same thing with the congress and the country has no fallen.


with elected officials it's expected that they listen to polls and pander to people. SCOTUS is supposed to be above politics and public opinion and render decisions based simply on their opinion of the law and they are supposed to cite their decisions with precedent.

SCOTUS judges aren't there for someone to take a 10 year old soundbite and ask why they changed their mind on something in classic media fashion where changing your opinion is evil. if you want to know their opinion you need to read their opinion on a case with the citations.

if they want to make the legal system more open they should fund a project that puts all court decisions from all levels on the internet along with the transcripts and links them together so i can click a citation and go to another case

[Red Dog]

I think anything that makes the Supreme Court more accessible to the general public is a bad thing. Audio--fine. But television news would love to have copies of that to air on controversial decisions, for commentators to take things out of context or make a particular justice a target, etc.

For what it's worth, I think cameras in the Senate and House are wrong, too. Politicians do enough posturing as it is.


Exactly.

I wonder how many people who dislike Scalia have actually ever read anything he has written.


Time to remove their insulation from reality.

Again, what insulation? The words they say in Court and the words they write are alreadey easily available to you.

Now if you want to talk about reality, then go back to what I said before. The reality is that the real workings of Court take place in the chambers, between the clerks, and in conference.

[bwvanh114]

classicman2: Introducing cameras in the SC is one way to get rid of Scalia. ;)
CRM114: Exactly. Irritating Scalia is one excellent reason.What has Scalia done that you don't like?

[al_bundy]

What has Scalia done that you don't like?

everyone knows he is evil because all strict constructionists are evil

[JasonF]

I'm tentatively in favor of cameras in the Supreme Court (and other courts). I agree, it does arguably increase the likelihood of posturing by justices and judges, but with the justices already looking for headlines out on the lecture circuit (quack quack), I think we're already there anyway.

I do agree with classicman that it's not Arlen Specter's decision -- it's the perogative of the Supreme Court and other courts to decide, and Congress should have nothing to do with it.

[bwvanh114]

everyone knows he is evil because all strict constructionists are evilI am hoping for specifics such as votes on specific issues that CRM114 disagrees with. For example, I can say America is better off without a lot of the decisions Bush made... then I can list a couple of those decisions I disagree with and also say why I disagree with them.

[CRM114]

with elected officials it's expected that they listen to polls and pander to people. SCOTUS is supposed to be above politics and public opinion and render decisions based simply on their opinion of the law and they are supposed to cite their decisions with precedent.


That went out the window when the SCOTUS appointed Bush the President.

[Red Dog]

That went out the window when the SCOTUS appointed Bush the President.


This again. Never gets old. :lol:

[CRM114]

What has Scalia done that you don't like?

Go hunting with the Vice President and not recuse yourself from a case involving the VP.

Refusing to be recorded when giving speeches and ordering police to confiscate recording devices.

His ignorant public statements concering the Newdow case and the pledge.

I'm sure Scalia is a brilliant legal mind. Doesn't mean he's not a total asshole.

[CRM114]

This again. Never gets old. :lol:

Do you think the whole episode was constitutionally sound?

[CRM114]

I do agree with classicman that it's not Arlen Specter's decision -- it's the perogative of the Supreme Court and other courts to decide, and Congress should have nothing to do with it.

Would it be Roberts' decision?

[Red Dog]

Do you think the whole episode was constitutionally sound?


I don't think it was a particularly well-written opinion, but I do believe that there was a violation of equal protection by the state of Florida. So did 7 Justices, including 2 liberal ones.

Did you read the opinion?

[CRM114]

The remedy was voted 5-4 which is the point in question, AFAIC. Ceasing all recounts was not the correct course and it effectively appointed the POTUS.

[Red Dog]

The remedy was voted 5-4 which is the point in question, AFAIC. Ceasing all recounts was not the correct course and it effectively appointed the POTUS.


'Correct' course? What does that mean - sounds like a policy preference to me? Do you mean 'legal' course? What is your support for this?

[CRM114]

'Correct' course? What does that mean - sounds like a policy preference to me? Do you mean 'legal' course? What is your support for this?

Simple. The state called for a recount. A recount was avoided at all costs and fought at the SCOTUS. A recount was never allowed to happen.

[Red Dog]

The state's recount procedures were unconstitutional from the start. You mean a constitutional recount (that didn't violate equal protection) was never allowed to happen. That's not the SCt's fault. The Florida courts and legislature screwed up from the start by allowing different types of recount methods/standards to be used.

BTW, you never answered my question about whether you read Bush v. Gore.

[CRM114]

The state's recount procedures were unconstitutional from the start. You mean a constitutional recount (that didn't violate equal protection) was never allowed to happen. That's not the SCt's fault. The Florida courts and legislature screwed up from the start by allowing different types of recount methods/standards to be used.

BTW, you never answered my question about whether you read Bush v. Gore.

Thats the point. It should have never gone to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS appointed the President by not allowing the recount to happen. I don't give a rats ass about procedures - procedures could have been worked out. The state wasn' even given that opportunity.

Did I read all of Bush v Gore? :lol: Of course not. Did I read the parts that interested me and that I could understand, yes. Did you?

[CRM114]

BTW, do you agree with the Equal Protection crock?

[Draven]

The House and Senate represent us - we should be able to watch what they say in our stead and see how they behave.

The Supreme Court does NOT represent me (nor should they), and since their decisions are readily accessible, the only reason to require cameras is to judge the judges by how they perform on camera, which should not be a requirement of the job in any way.

[classicman2]

The remedy was voted 5-4 which is the point in question, AFAIC. Ceasing all recounts was not the correct course and it effectively appointed the POTUS.


For the 1,354th time - the vote that decided Bush would be the president was not 5-4. It was 7-2.

There wasn't time for a state-wide recount to be completed. The SC ruled 7-2 that the selected counties recount violated the EPC of the Constitution.

I do agree with the EP concept.

[Bushdog]

I'll jump in on this, with CRM.

It sounds like most of the issue that is had here is not the rightness or wrongness, legally of cameras, but rather a focus on the outcome. Red Dog, that's a position that "pragmatists" like our friend Classicman hold, not one that someone who is principle led should hold.

This is information, and only slightly different from what is currently available. It seems like there are many advocates for closed government. SC Justices are already insulated as these are lifetime appointments. The cameras simply help to spread information. We shouldn't live in a world of secret tribunals, and as someone astutely pointed out earlier, there's a whole lot that matters that will still happen when the cameras are off.

All in all, this is largely a non-story. And if the SCOTUS starts getting press time on those stupid shows frequented by partisans of either flavor, so be it. They are at almost no risk of being removed from office and carbon blobs will maintain their positions with or without cameras.

[JasonF]

Would it be Roberts' decision?

For something like this, I would think individual courts have the right to make their decisions, so that if the 3rd Circuit, or the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, or whoever wants cameras in their courtrooms, each could make its own decision. There could also be a system-wide decision to allow cameras in courtrooms, which would come from Roberts.

[Red Dog]

Thats the point. It should have never gone to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS appointed the President by not allowing the recount to happen. I don't give a rats ass about procedures - procedures could have been worked out. The state wasn' even given that opportunity.

Did I read all of Bush v Gore? :lol: Of course not. Did I read the parts that interested me and that I could understand, yes. Did you?


You likely read the dissent only. :lol: I read the whole thing, including the dissents.

So equal protection questions (if not violations) should not go to the SCt? I'll have to remember that one next time you chime in on some equal rights case. The recount was happening. It just that the state of Florida was conducting an unconstitutional recount. Therein lies the problem.

[CRM114]

For the 1,354th time - the vote that decided Bush would be the president was not 5-4. It was 7-2.

On the claim that the ONLY REMEDY was to cease all recounts, the vote was 5-4. THIS is the area that disturbs me. And it goes into your next point.


There wasn't time for a state-wide recount to be completed. The SC ruled 7-2 that the selected counties recount violated the EPC of the Constitution.

The court ruling was based on the Safe Harbor provision. Souter:

"The 3 U.S.C. § 5 issue is not serious. That provision sets certain conditions for treating a State's certification of Presidential electors as conclusive in the event that a dispute over recognizing those electors must be resolved in the Congress under 3 U.S.C. § 15. Conclusiveness requires selection under a legal scheme in place before the election, with results determined at least six days before the date set for casting electoral votes. But no State is required to conform to §5 if it cannot do that (for whatever reason); the sanction for failing to satisfy the conditions of §5 is simply loss of what has been called its "safe harbor." And even that determination is to be made, if made anywhere, in the Congress."

[Red Dog]

For the 1,354th time - the vote that decided Bush would be the president was not 5-4. It was 7-2.

There wasn't time for a state-wide recount to be completed. The SC ruled 7-2 that the selected counties recount violated the EPC of the Constitution.

I do agree with the EP concept.


No matter how many times you say that, the naysayers will put their hands on their ears shouting "la la la la I am not listening...!!!!"

[Bushdog]

I see I'm a day late and a dollar short and you guys moved on to other things :lol:

[CRM114]

You likely read the dissent only. :lol: I read the whole thing, including the dissents.

Good for you. You work in law. I hgihly doubt you read things pertaining to my profession.


So equal protection questions (if not violations) should not go to the SCt? I'll have to remember that one next time you chime in on some equal rights case. The recount was happening. It just that the state of Florida was conducting an unconstitutional recount. Therein lies the problem.

You believe that the argument that the recount was invalid because the procedures were different in the counties? We couldn' do something wacky like, I don't know, AGREE ON a set of procedures? You agree the proper solution is to just appoint the President without a recount?

Does this EP argument not null and void all elections since no state or county has the exact same procedures as the rest? Its an absolute hogwash argument.

[CRM114]

I see I'm a day late and a dollar short and you guys moved on to other things :lol:

Good point. I'll reserve any more comment to preserve the thread.

[Red Dog]

I'll jump in on this, with CRM.

It sounds like most of the issue that is had here is not the rightness or wrongness, legally of cameras, but rather a focus on the outcome. Red Dog, that's a position that "pragmatists" like our friend Classicman hold, not one that someone who is principle led should hold.

This is information, and only slightly different from what is currently available. It seems like there are many advocates for closed government. SC Justices are already insulated as these are lifetime appointments. The cameras simply help to spread information. We shouldn't live in a world of secret tribunals, and as someone astutely pointed out earlier, there's a whole lot that matters that will still happen when the cameras are off.

All in all, this is largely a non-story. And if the SCOTUS starts getting press time on those stupid shows frequented by partisans of either flavor, so be it. They are at almost no risk of being removed from office and carbon blobs will maintain their positions with or without cameras.


What do cameras add exactly? Facial expressions? Also, SCt proceedings are not closed to the public. There is nothing secret nor insulated about them. They are open to anyone - if you get in line early enough in the morning before an argument.

[CRM114]

No matter how many times you say that, the naysayers will put their hands on their ears shouting "la la la la I am not listening...!!!!"

Of course you wouldn't agree with the dissent. You are a supporter of Thomas and Scalia! La la la indeed. :lol:

[CRM114]

What do cameras add exactly? Facial expressions? Also, SCt proceedings are not closed to the public. There is nothing secret nor insulated about them. They are open to anyone - if you get in line early enough in the morning before an argument.

What is so difficult to understand? What does it add?

Lets see, now I have to navigate to some website, search through a bunch of archaic and poorly designed search engines and hopefully find the audio of proceedings.

With cameras, I turn on CSPAN.

Why do you want to make it difficult and attainable only if one has a computer or makes a trip to a library?

IF you get in line early enough.....:lol: Classic.

[al_bundy]

Thats the point. It should have never gone to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS appointed the President by not allowing the recount to happen. I don't give a rats ass about procedures - procedures could have been worked out. The state wasn' even given that opportunity.

Did I read all of Bush v Gore? :lol: Of course not. Did I read the parts that interested me and that I could understand, yes. Did you?

as SCOTUS said you cannot make up the rules after the election, you have to follow the pre-election rules. the big problem was the florida supreme court because instead of citing law they based their decision on the state constitution

[Bushdog]

Red Dog, it increases access. I fundamentally believe it will increase the number of people who hear the Court's decision in its own words. It seems like you are opposed to things that lead to greater access (I'm thinking voter ID laws and the opposition to), and coupled with your view of carbon blobs it leads me to believe that you think governing and government is better served if you can close access to the laziest, least educated, poorer, etc...

[Red Dog]

Good for you. You work in law. I hgihly doubt you read things pertaining to my profession.



You believe that the argument that the recount was invalid because the procedures were different in the counties? We couldn' do something wacky like, I don't know, AGREE ON a set of procedures? You agree the proper solution is to just appoint the President without a recount?

Does this EP argument not null and void all elections since no state or county has the exact same procedures as the rest? Its an absolute hogwash argument.


Who is to agree on the set of procedures? You can't create procedures after the fact. It was Florida's responsibility to have a manual recount procedure in place prior to an election that did not violate equal protection. They clearly did not. The Florida courts' crafting of procedures did nothing to help acheive equal protection.

BTW - there was a recount. Not a complete manual one.

You think it is hogwash because you don't understand the law. Individual states run elections, not the federal government. There is no constitutional requirement that one state's procedures must be the same as another. It is within one state, that election procedures must be uniform.

I find it hilarious that you of all people is jumping on the states rights bandwagon here. I wish you did it more often.

[al_bundy]

from what i remember the media counted the votes in 2001 and 2002 and it came out that bush really did win and al gore was just trying to use the courts to get illegal ballots entered

[Red Dog]

Red Dog, it increases access. I fundamentally believe it will increase the number of people who hear the Court's decision in its own words. It seems like you are opposed to things that lead to greater access (I'm thinking voter ID laws and the opposition to), and coupled with your view of carbon blobs it leads me to believe that you think governing and government is better served if you can close access to the laziest, least educated, poorer, etc...


I don't see how it increases access. Anyone has the ability right now to get the audio or transcript with ease.

As for your laziest comment, please. -rolleyes- I couldn't care less who votes or wants to be involved in government. I simply want people to prove their identify when they vote and requiring a picture-ID doesn't mean I prefer closed access.

[CRM114]

Who is to agree on the set of procedures? You can't create procedures after the fact. It was Florida's responsibility to have a manual recount procedure in place prior to an election that did not violate equal protection. They clearly did not. The Florida courts' crafting of procedures did nothing to help acheive equal protection.

BTW - there was a recount. Not a complete manual one.

So then you find it a better solution to appoint the President rather than a recount? One of the main findings was that the court felt that the recount could not be completed on time. Do you agree with that as well?


You think it is hogwash because you don't understand the law. Individual states run elections, not the federal government. There is no constitutional requirement that one state's procedures must be the same as another. It is within one state, that election procedures must be uniform.

Obviously, you don't understand the point. Its not about between states, its about between counties within states. All counties have different procedures for collecting votes let alone recounting them.


I find it hilarious that you of all people is jumping on the states rights bandwagon here. I wish you did it more often.

I see shades of gray. I wish more people did that.

[CRM114]

from what i remember the media counted the votes in 2001 and 2002 and it came out that bush really did win and al gore was just trying to use the courts to get illegal ballots entered

Check again.

[CRM114]

Anyone has the ability right now to get the audio or transcript with ease.


That's an incredibly inaccurate comment.

[al_bundy]

the problem was that different counties had different recount standards for the same type of ballot. if al bore wanted to recount votes for years to come he is free to do so, but it's not going to change the election

[Red Dog]

Of course you wouldn't agree with the dissent. You are a supporter of Thomas and Scalia! La la la indeed. :lol:


Whatever.

I have criticized Scalia frequently. Much more frequently in recent years. Ask JasonF. Thomas not as much, but I certainly don't 'support' him - his views on separation of powers (executive power) are quite different than mine, and I have said as much in this forum. I certainly don't agree with his view on the Establishment Clause.

Unlike yourself, I have the ability to look at a case, apply the Constitution, and determine the correct legal outcome. This can lead to outcomes that goes against my political policy preference. Abortion is the best example of this.

You take a case, figure out what outcome politically you support, and then try to support it from there.

[Red Dog]

That's an incredibly inaccurate comment.

Who doesn't? Have you heard of computers in libraries that are free to use?

[kvrdave]

I don't see a good reason for this not to happen. At least not good enough to keep it from happening.

[CRM114]

Who doesn't? Have you heard of computers in libraries that are free to use?

Fine. Then drop the "with ease" part of your statement.

[Bushdog]

I don't see how it increases access. Anyone has the ability right now to get the audio or transcript with ease.

As for your laziest comment, please. -rolleyes- I couldn't care less who votes or wants to be involved in government. I simply want people to prove their identify when they vote and requiring a picture-ID doesn't mean I prefer closed access.
OK, these just happen to be unrelated positions you hold that will have the effect of decreasing the probability of government access to certain groups. And you just happen to sneer at the masses with your coined term 'carbon blobs'. I'm sure you're all about inclusiveness, sorry. Not sure how anyone could think differently. :shrug:

If you don't care who wants access, if you already think that there is access to SCOTUS information out there, I just don't see why you care about this decision. While it is unnecessary in your mind, it isn't like it is going to increase the financial burden of the government by much. So you are opposing something with no downside or upside?

Really, I don't see how this can decrease access and if they start showing it on TV, I imagine it can increase access. Now people don't have to search for content if interested they can have it served up to them on TV or the Internet without asking.

There is a difference between information being pushed on you and on you pulling information. Video is more conducive as a push medium than audio tapes or driving to DC and standing in line.

[Bushdog]

I don't see a good reason for this not to happen. At least not good enough to keep it from happening.
Yeah, this really didn't seem controversial to me, either. Non-story more than anything.

"Hey, we're going to move into the 1990's and go to TV as opposed to cassettes"

[CRM114]

Unlike yourself, I have the ability to look at a case, apply the Constitution, and determine the correct legal outcome. This can lead to outcomes that goes against my political policy preference. Abortion is the best example of this.


Obviously. You are a lawyer. I mean, duh!

I'm some shmo on a message board telling YOU I think it sucks that the SCOTUS appointed the President. And my layman's reading of the decisions tells me that the appointment was done on technicalities rather than practicality.

I suppose some are fine with using a technicality to get out of a manual recount. As Americans, we should all support a clean election system but obviously we all do not.

[kvrdave]

Okay, let me ammend my statement by saying we should restrict access from dumb people.

[CRM114]

Yeah, this really didn't seem controversial to me, either. Non-story more than anything.

"Hey, we're going to move into the 1990's and go to TV as opposed to cassettes"

Its a story because Scalia is vehemently opposed to the idea and will probably fight it to its death. Then we'll be back to audio tapes.

[Red Dog]

So then you find it a better solution to appoint the President rather than a recount? One of the main findings was that the court felt that the recount could not be completed on time. Do you agree with that as well?



Obviously, you don't understand the point. Its not about between states, its about between counties within states. All counties have different procedures for collecting votes let alone recounting them.



I see shades of gray. I wish more people did that.


The only 'solution' that is relavent is that the law/constitution must be followed. It may not lead to a preferable result in a particular case, but you can't simply ignore it. Whether you viewed December 12 or 18 as the cut-off date, no I don't believe a uniform recount could have been conducted in time.

The state of Florida was the political entity that crafted the election laws of Florida. The individual jurisdictions must conduct themselves within that framework.

You see shades of gray to suit your needs.

[Red Dog]

I just don't see why you care about this decision. While it is unnecessary in your mind, it isn't like it is going to increase the financial burden of the government by much. So you are opposing something with no downside or upside?



I think my agreement with c-man and others on what kind of atmosphere this will lead to in the Court speaks for itself. Not to mention, as indicated, it is not up to Congress to decide this.

I don't think the benefits (zero) outweighs the negative.

[CRM114]

The only 'solution' that is relavent is that the law/constitution must be followed. It may not lead to a preferable result in a particular case, but you can't simply ignore it. Whether you viewed December 12 or 18 as the cut-off date, no I don't believe a uniform recount could have been conducted in time.

The state of Florida was the political entity that crafted the election laws of Florida. The individual jurisdictions must conduct themselves within that framework.

You see shades of gray to suit your needs.

Souter argued that the Safe Harbor date was arbitrary an meaningless. The casting of the electoral votes could have been and should have been delayed. Instead, we have the very fabric of American elections cast in doubt forever.

You mean that the Bush team easily circumvented the holes in FL election law and used them to their advantage to kill a recount. I fail to see how killing a recount is either noble or the correct course of action.

[Red Dog]

Obviously. You are a lawyer. I mean, duh!

I'm some shmo on a message board telling YOU I think it sucks that the SCOTUS appointed the President. And my layman's reading of the decisions tells me that the appointment was done on technicalities rather than practicality.

I suppose some are fine with using a technicality to get out of a manual recount. As Americans, we should all support a clean election system but obviously we all do not.


It has nothing to do with me being a lawyer. For example, Duran is not a lawyer and he almost always comes to the same conclusion that I do on a constitutional issue.

What you call a technicality is what I call the constitution and law. Pesky things aren't they?

[Red Dog]

Souter argued that the Safe Harbor date was arbitrary an meaningless. The casting of the electoral votes could have been and should have been delayed. Instead, we have the very fabric of American elections cast in doubt forever.

You mean that the Bush team easily circumvented the holes in FL election law and used them to their advantage to kill a recount. I fail to see how killing a recount is either noble or the correct course of action.


If your boy, Al Gore, hadn't cherry-picked certain counties to go for recounts and instead had asked for the whole state to recount at the very beginning, you probably would have gotten your state-wide manual recount. Do you think Gore's conduct in going for certain counties only was noble? What about his opposition to the absentee ballots? Was that noble?

[CRM114]

I don't think the benefits (zero) outweighs the negative.

You don't think the public would benefit from seeing Michael Newdow argue in front of the SCOTUS? The public not hearing any of his arguments is a benefit? Surely, most of the public just knows that someone is trying to get the Pledge thrown out without hearing (from what I understand, I didn't see it :) ) a very compelling argument?

[Red Dog]

You don't think the public would benefit from seeing Michael Newdow argue in front of the SCOTUS? The public not hearing any of his arguments is a benefit? Surely, most of the public just knows that someone is trying to get the Pledge thrown out without hearing (from what I understand, I didn't see it :) ) a very compelling argument?


Jeez - how many times do I have to say it. The public already has the opportunity to hear the argument. I heard it - on CSPAN's America and the Courts program no less! I think Newdow was great too - he's unflapable.

[CRM114]

What you call a technicality is what I call the constitution and law. Pesky things aren't they?


Its your interpretation of the Constitution! Justice Ginsburg found the EP claim to be bogus since the recount could never be perfect as to pass the court's muster. She argued that the recount was no less accurate than the certification which preceded it and which became the basis on which the President was elected.

[CRM114]

If your boy, Al Gore, hadn't cherry-picked certain counties to go for recounts and instead had asked for the whole state to recount at the very beginning, you probably would have gotten your state-wide manual recount. Do you think Gore's conduct in going for certain counties only was noble? What about his opposition to the absentee ballots? Was that noble?

I believe the noble thing to do was a full manual recount. Instead, there was no recount whatsoever and the SCOTUS appointed the President by a 5-4 margin.

[CRM114]

Jeez - how many times do I have to say it. The public already has the opportunity to hear the argument. I heard it - on CSPAN's America and the Courts program no less! I think Newdow was great too - he's unflapable.

If there were video in the court, Newdow would have been on every news cast in America - not just on CSPAN at 3am.

[Red Dog]

If there were video in the court, Newdow would have been on every news cast in America - not just on CSPAN at 3am.


That's 7 pm Saturdays, and available free anytime on the web. :D

I don't particularly think snippets of oral arguments on news broadcasts is a good thing. Hell, news articles on case outcomes are frequently poorly written and a distortion of the holding, if not flat out wrong.

[Red Dog]

Its your interpretation of the Constitution!


Correct. EP arguments do require a lot of interpretation. But keep in mind that 2 liberal justices bought the EP argument as well, so you can't just say this was a partisan interpretation.

One thing you can be certain of - if the roles were reversed in Bush v. Gore, I would have the same exact opinion on the case. I had no horse in that race.

[classicman2]

Next we'll be having the SC tell the Senate what rules that body should follow.

I believe the noble thing to do was a full manual recount. Instead, there was no recount whatsoever and the SCOTUS appointed the President by a 5-4 margin.

Please! There wasn't time.

A recount was performed. The recount that the SC declared to be unconstitutional by a vote of 7-2.

I thought at first when the big guns were sent to Florida, Baker & Christopher, that there would be a deal struck, and that it would stay out of the courts which it should have.

The deal most likely would have been a state-wide recount, although both Democrats & Republicans didn't want a state-wide recount. The Democrats wanted a 'selected recount' in heavily Democratic counties that would favor them. The Republicans didn't want any recount. They had been declared the winner.

What happened - the Democrats rushed to state court where they knew they had the advantage.

[Breakfast with Girls]

If there were video in the court, Newdow would have been on every news cast in America - not just on CSPAN at 3am.A six-second sound bite from him, anyway. I'd rather have people have to seek out recordings than have a sound bite served to them. And CSPAN airs America and the Courts on Saturdays at 7pm ET.

[CRM114]

A six-second sound bite from him, anyway. I'd rather have people have to seek out recordings than have a sound bite served to them. And CSPAN airs America and the Courts on Saturdays at 7pm ET.

I disagree. i'd rather the public get a 20 second soundbite from Newdow explaining some rationale of the case rather than what we did have - news shows reporting on some wacko trying to get rid of the pledge. i suppose you'd be in favor of eliminating all current new programs dealing with government then?

[CRM114]

Please! There wasn't time.

Justice Souter disagrees (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7610298&postcount=61). He claimed that Dec 12 date was meaningless.

Its a pretty sad commentary that elections need to have recounts completed on a certain date regardless of the legal proceedings or other factors holding them up.

The Safe Harbor date was just another technicality the Bush team used to AVOID a recount.

[classicman2]

Why didn't the Democrats suggest a state-wide recount in the beginning?

This isn't the first time that Souter has been wrong. I doubt if it'll be the last. :lol:

[Red Dog]

I disagree. i'd rather the public get a 20 second soundbite from Newdow explaining some rationale of the case rather than what we did have - news shows reporting on some wacko trying to get rid of the pledge. i suppose you'd be in favor of eliminating all current new programs dealing with government then?


What if they take a 20-second snippet where he or someone else arguing before the Court makes little sense? Would that be okay? There is no guarantee that the television press is going to air the snippets that you like and there is no guarantee that they will grant equal time to the opposing argument. The press has the right to air what they want, but don't think for a minute that you are going to get some accurate depiction of the relavent arguments from a 60-minute session in the Court. I believe this is what Scalia and others, such as myself, are concerned about. Yeah, they know that audio is there and could be used (and was in Bush v. Gore reporting), but they know that it is more boring and less likely to be edited and put out for consumption by the press.

There was probably a concern about this way back when at the time Congress considered live coverage for themselves. Congressmen adapted to the sound-bite age of the media, and I think their floor speeches reflect that - they try to sway public opinion with certain types of rhetoric. That's not a lawyer nor judges' job in court.

[kvrdave]

Why didn't the Democrats suggest a state-wide recount in the beginning?


They wanted Gore to win.

[Ranger]

There was probably a concern about this way back when at the time Congress considered live coverage for themselves. Congressmen adapted to the sound-bite age of the media, and I think their floor speeches reflect that - they try to sway public opinion with certain types of rhetoric. That's not a lawyer nor judges' job in court.
How long has the UK Prime Minister's Questions been televised?

Weren't you a fan of these things and wanted a similar event done with Congress and Bush? :)


Haven't read everything here, but if people say that they want more than audio recordings, then it seems fair if they have access to court transcripts in order to make it easier to distinguish between the speakers as opposed to audio recording. But I don't think the media really cares. They're too lazy to filter these things out and make sense of it.

[Red Dog]

How long has the UK Prime Minister's Questions been televised?

Weren't you a fan of these things and wanted a similar event done with Congress and Bush? :)


Haven't read everything here, but if people say that they want more than audio recordings, then it seems fair if they have access to court transcripts in order to make it easier to distinguish between the speakers as opposed to audio recording. But I don't think the media really cares. They're too lazy to filter these things out.


PM Questions was great - at least when it was Blair vs. Howard. And like I said - a legislator's job is to sway public opinion to their side. The MPs and PM in the UK are in the same boat and they tailor their questions and answers for public consumption. Same with the President, another elected official, so I don't have a problem with the current coverage of Congress or Parliament in the UK's case.

[Ranger]

I have tried watching these things but it's hard to keep track of the conversation when these guys are both talking and changing the topic so fast.

How complete are SCt case transcripts? Considering it is multi-sessional, I guess it could take some time to piece it together but a quick look at the recent transcript list does seem fairly accessible. These pdfs are text-searchable for easier searching so I guess video isn't going to add anything except faces.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html

[Venusian]

Lets see, now I have to navigate to some website, search through a bunch of archaic and poorly designed search engines and hopefully find the audio of proceedings.

With cameras, I turn on CSPAN.

as was previously pointed out, you can already do this, they just play audio with pictures.

[crazyronin]

I guess some folks only think its real if its on the moving picture box. :shrug:

[Venusian]

Not to continue down the derailed thread, but how does the SC stopping the recount equate to them appointing Bush? Didn't they just uphold the election result?

[CRM114]

Why didn't the Democrats suggest a state-wide recount in the beginning?


I don't recall specifically but the artificial deadline probably had something to do with it. Put it this way, when a manual recount is required, it should not be this difficult to do it. You should get a reasonable amount of time.

[JasonF]

Justice Roberts spoke at Northwestern University today, where he apparently said -- on the topic of cameras in the courtroom -- "Justice Souter said, ‘Over my dead body,’ and we all like Justice Souter.”

:lol:

[Red Dog]

He's used that statement on numerous occasions. The Chief needs new material.

Off topic - I watched the first 2 parts of PBS's SCt series last night and it is obvious that the Chief has a deep appreciation and depth of knowledge of the history of the SCt.

[Red Dog]

I'm watching Specter's speech on the floor on America and the Courts right now. He really does babble on nonsensically about the whole SCt process doesn't he? :lol:

It is is also weird that he is proposing this legislation now. Why wouldn't he do it when the GOP was in power and he was head of the Judiciary Committee? Doesn't make sense unless he's got nothing better to do now.

[al_bundy]

if they pass this law, all the supreme court has to do is declare it unconstitutional

[CRM114]

if they pass this law, all the supreme court has to do is declare it unconstitutional

And the Congress will cut off their funding. ;)