Should SCOTUS cases be livestreamed or shown on TV?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:12:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Should SCOTUS cases be livestreamed or shown on TV?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
No
 
#2
Yes
 
#3
Yes but only recorded and released later.
 
#4
Audio only.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 47

Author Topic: Should SCOTUS cases be livestreamed or shown on TV?  (Read 1788 times)
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 02, 2021, 10:54:46 PM »

?
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,268
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2021, 11:02:44 PM »

live audio feed imo
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2021, 11:22:55 PM »

Yes, with exceptions for cases where the lawyers arguing the case (not the justices, obviously) do not agree to be filmed or recorded.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,449
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2021, 01:29:38 AM »
« Edited: July 03, 2021, 05:26:06 PM by brucejoel99 »

I'd love to see the COVID-era live audio feed made permanent because oral arguments should be broadcast live in some form, but cameras in the courtroom would honestly suck. Not only are oral arguments >99% audio & mayyyybe 1% visual on a good day (e.g., back in the days of yore when Scalia was still around for a good quip every now & then) anyway, but the chief drawbacks of live or even just same-day televised proceedings that come to mind are that they could potentially change the way in which the justices act in the courtroom (given that they'd now have cameras on them), & not necessarily for the better; reduce the relative level of anonymity that the justices now hold as individuals, thereby potentially heightening their security concerns as a result; & result in flashy 30-second snippets & soundbites being plucked from the proceedings for cable news, thereby leading to the public misinterpreting the Court &/or its processes. At least the general lack of flashiness or "sexiness" - for lack of a better term - associated with just the use of sound has mostly prevented the cable news networks from plucking any flashy 30-second soundbites from the audio recordings for use, but I don't even wanna risk seeing what they'd do if given the opportunity to do so. If they had to "televise" cases purely for the purpose of people being able to watch what an argument looks like, then they could just utilize the live audio feed like they've been doing since the onset of COVID while perhaps recording a visual feed but not releasing the video recordings 'til a certain point in the future, be it the conclusion of either that Court's monthly sitting or its OT, the point in time at which none of the justices serving at the time-of-recording are no longer serving on the Court &/or alive, etc. That way, you don't suffer from the potential drawbacks of live video, all the while not suffering any of the lack thereof's potential "historical-purpose" harms. But anybody who wants to know what happened at oral arguments can already listen to the audio thereof in the status quo, while visual proceedings would perhaps constitute just a minor improvement over the status quo's format, all the while risking the aforementioned dangers, many of which are the same dangers that such various justices as Scalia, Breyer, Alito, & Kagan have all cautioned Congress about at committee hearing after committee hearing on the proposal.
Logged
ibagli
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 487
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2021, 07:16:26 AM »

The fact that the highbrow legal establishment hates it is enough for me to say yes at this point, but the court could probably head it off for good by keeping live audio, which they're already wired for, and which they actually had for the last year and a half with little consequence.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2021, 12:24:10 PM »

Yes, but it's not happening.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2021, 04:30:17 PM »
« Edited: July 03, 2021, 04:34:28 PM by MaxQue »

It's wierd, here in Canada, they are broadcasted on both their websites and CPAC (Canadian equivalent of CSPAN) unless there is a reason not do (publication ban or privacy concern)

And it's been going on since years (their website goes back to 2009).

For May seating (9 hearings), 8 were broadcasted.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2021, 06:14:54 PM »

I can see both sides of the issue. I don't really feel strongly one way or the other. However, as I've said before, at minimum, the Court should definitely continue the live audio that it started last year during the early days of the pandemic. There are no downsides to continuing that once in-person arguments resume.
Logged
Geoffrey Howe
Geoffrey Howe admirer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,788
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2021, 11:59:00 AM »

Absolutely not. We shouldn't have cameras in Congress either.

Strongly agree about no cameras in court, but not sure about Congress. Why? We started televising the House of Commons in 1989 and I'm not sure it has had a net negative impact. On the one hand I think it inspires a certain respect for the place with its majesty, poor behaviour of MPs notwithstanding (they can change that themselves); and "humanise" the place so power does not seem (as) detached . On the other hand sitting in the chamber is not their only job - there is committee work, constituency surgeries and so on - and people might get the wrong impression of a representative's function; for instance, one sees ridiculous YouTube comments when the chamber is empty of people saying they're not doing what we pay them for.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2021, 12:10:37 PM »

Absolutely not. We shouldn't have cameras in Congress either.

I mean why not record it and keep it for historical purposes?
Maybe release when the person is dead or in a certain number of years.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,449
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2021, 08:33:51 PM »
« Edited: July 06, 2021, 08:51:30 PM by brucejoel99 »

Absolutely not. We shouldn't have cameras in Congress either.

Strongly agree about no cameras in court, but not sure about Congress. Why?

Not who you were responding to, but the establishment of C-SPAN & the resultant ability of news networks to pluck any flashy congressional snippets thereof undoubtedly played a significant role in turning Congress into the dysfunctional - let alone do-nothing - hall of sh*t that it is today, in that Congress devolved from actually being about inquiring into given matters at hand into a polarized hellhole in response to every congressional proceeding becoming the news' clip-bait. In the post C-SPAN era, a member of Congress is just campaigning rather than legislating whenever they happen to find themselves in front of a camera. Of course, the alternative to that was who-the-hell-knows because greater congressional transparency is indeed obviously important for representative accountability purposes, but still, with cameras having already f**ked that branch of government up, it's not unreasonable to not want to see them forcibly inflicted upon another.
Logged
Geoffrey Howe
Geoffrey Howe admirer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,788
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2021, 12:01:25 AM »

Absolutely not. We shouldn't have cameras in Congress either.

Strongly agree about no cameras in court, but not sure about Congress. Why?

Not who you were responding to, but the establishment of C-SPAN & the resultant ability of news networks to pluck any flashy congressional snippets thereof undoubtedly played a significant role in turning Congress into the dysfunctional - let alone do-nothing - hall of sh*t that it is today, in that Congress devolved from actually being about inquiring into given matters at hand into a polarized hellhole in response to every congressional proceeding becoming the news' clip-bait. In the post C-SPAN era, a member of Congress is just campaigning rather than legislating whenever they happen to find themselves in front of a camera. Of course, the alternative to that was who-the-hell-knows because greater congressional transparency is indeed obviously important for representative accountability purposes, but still, with cameras having already f**ked that branch of government up, it's not unreasonable to not want to see them forcibly inflicted upon another.

Congress does seem to function like that, in a way that the HoC doesn't (at least not to that extent). Odd, I wonder why one and not the other - surely there is something beyond televising that has done this.
The argument for cameras in court has always struck me as weak nowadays given how easily you can access opinions online and eventually get the audio.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2021, 04:20:45 AM »

Congress does seem to function like that, in a way that the HoC doesn't (at least not to that extent). Odd, I wonder why one and not the other - surely there is something beyond televising that has done this.
The argument for cameras in court has always struck me as weak nowadays given how easily you can access opinions online and eventually get the audio.

It probably has to do with the superiority of the parliamentary system. The House of Commons is essentially where all power is centralized. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are all members and are all accountable. The system here in the US has resorted to pointing fingers. In this current political paradigm, all fingers are pointed at the Senate. We have too many veto points. The Founders intended for periodic change, but too many believe the Constitution arrived on stone tablets from Jesus Christ himself.
Logged
Geoffrey Howe
Geoffrey Howe admirer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,788
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2021, 08:32:37 AM »

Congress does seem to function like that, in a way that the HoC doesn't (at least not to that extent). Odd, I wonder why one and not the other - surely there is something beyond televising that has done this.
The argument for cameras in court has always struck me as weak nowadays given how easily you can access opinions online and eventually get the audio.

It probably has to do with the superiority of the parliamentary system. The House of Commons is essentially where all power is centralized. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are all members and are all accountable. The system here in the US has resorted to pointing fingers. In this current political paradigm, all fingers are pointed at the Senate. We have too many veto points. The Founders intended for periodic change, but too many believe the Constitution arrived on stone tablets from Jesus Christ himself.

Strongly agree. The system generally works better, and this is manifested in how they behave. Meanwhile, the civil service...well there's a sitcom for that.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,769
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2021, 08:26:35 PM »

They're on CSPAN but you don't see them, you just hear them, when you have a 6/3 R Crt you are gonna have that
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,449
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2022, 03:32:36 PM »

Relevant (& good!) update:

Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2022, 06:06:44 AM »

That is great news indeed. I was actually trying to find more info about that several days ago. All I found then were some comments from Justice Kagan saying she supported keeping live audio feeds, but also that she was only one vote. When you consider current sentiments about the Court, it's almost a no-brainer for the Court to choose the option that provides greater transparency and accessibility.

The more I think about it the more I'm quite certain that this is the best way to do things. I've taken the opportunity to listen to some of the live feeds. I don't really see anything that could be added by adding a visual aspect. I actually think it would detract from the arguments.
Logged
Biden his time
Abdullah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,644
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2022, 03:23:42 PM »



Video Link
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2022, 09:16:16 AM »

Congress does seem to function like that, in a way that the HoC doesn't (at least not to that extent). Odd, I wonder why one and not the other - surely there is something beyond televising that has done this.
The argument for cameras in court has always struck me as weak nowadays given how easily you can access opinions online and eventually get the audio.

It probably has to do with the superiority of the parliamentary system. The House of Commons is essentially where all power is centralized. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are all members and are all accountable. The system here in the US has resorted to pointing fingers. In this current political paradigm, all fingers are pointed at the Senate. We have too many veto points. The Founders intended for periodic change, but too many believe the Constitution arrived on stone tablets from Jesus Christ himself.

1. Hasn't the UK replaced the law lords with a separate supreme court that is outside the power of parliament?

2. I have read the UK has an unwritten constitution. How much "teeth" that has as a practical I don't know, but whatever its degree of relevance, perhaps with a supreme court now operating, the unwritten constitution might become more written perhaps over time.

3. Do you know why the UK was the sole place on earth (passed on to its colonies of course) that developed a common law system where cases have precedential value?
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2022, 08:51:24 AM »
« Edited: October 10, 2022, 10:22:02 PM by politicallefty »

Congress does seem to function like that, in a way that the HoC doesn't (at least not to that extent). Odd, I wonder why one and not the other - surely there is something beyond televising that has done this.
The argument for cameras in court has always struck me as weak nowadays given how easily you can access opinions online and eventually get the audio.

It probably has to do with the superiority of the parliamentary system. The House of Commons is essentially where all power is centralized. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are all members and are all accountable. The system here in the US has resorted to pointing fingers. In this current political paradigm, all fingers are pointed at the Senate. We have too many veto points. The Founders intended for periodic change, but too many believe the Constitution arrived on stone tablets from Jesus Christ himself.

1. Hasn't the UK replaced the law lords with a separate supreme court that is outside the power of parliament?

2. I have read the UK has an unwritten constitution. How much "teeth" that has as a practical I don't know, but whatever its degree of relevance, perhaps with a supreme court now operating, the unwritten constitution might become more written perhaps over time.

3. Do you know why the UK was the sole place on earth (passed on to its colonies of course) that developed a common law system where cases have precedential value?

The UK does indeed have a Supreme Court now, although I'm not entirely sure how it functions relative to the system here in the US. I do believe it is significantly weaker than SCOTUS, but that has more to do with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I wasn't arguing that that is a better idea though. There was this (R (Miller) v The Prime Minister) major case a couple years ago that involved the constitutional powers of the Prime Minister (through the Queen) over Parliament.

I don't think an unwritten constitution would work in most places (and certainly not here in the US). While the UK isn't the only constitutional monarchy (also excluding the Commonwealth) in the world, it is a pretty rare form of government. I do believe the existence of the monarchy has much to do with the nature of the unwritten constitution. I would've thought that perhaps common law came out the same way, but I'm not sure I'm inclined to believe that. Monarchy was the default form of government for most of the world for many years and yet the UK (and its progeny) are the only countries with common law. It could be geography though. Island nations have tended to evolve in a way quite different from their continental counterparts and UK is definitely exceptionally unique.

My point with the previous post was that televising the House of Commons hasn't resulted in the same partisan rancor that has happened in this country through televising both Houses of Congress. When you televise the House of Representatives or the Senate, you're only getting part of the show. In the UK, the House of Commons is effectively the whole show, particularly when the Prime Minister or a Cabinet member is speaking.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 13 queries.