Should Congress Force Cameras in the Supreme Court? Issues and Legality

[~hellbaby~]

With the upcoming healthcare hearings, congress is exploring its rights to force the Supreme Court to televise oral arguements and put cameras in the court. There are issues on the constitutionality of this and separation of powers. Arlen Specter, former PA. senator (R), has been pushing for this for decades. There are many aspects to this issue. CSpan is rebroadcasting hearings from Tuesday now. They have lots of info online about it.
http://www.c-span.org/The-Courts/Cameras-in-The-Court/

On Cameras in Supreme Court, Souter Says, 'Over My Dead Body'​

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/30/us/on-cameras-in-supreme-court-souter-says-over-my-dead-body.html
AP
Published: March 30, 1996
The subject was allowing cameras into the Supreme Court, and Justice David H. Souter minced no words.
"I think the case is so strong," Justice Souter said, "that I can tell you the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."
Appearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Thursday, Justice Souter and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy made it clear that even though Federal appeals courts allow cameras to cover proceedings, television will not be allowed in the Supreme Court any time soon​

....................
Any thoughts?

 

[JohnnySavage]

No, I don't think they should. The audio tapes of the arguments are available fairly quickly and I don't see any need to have video recordings. To me, it would take away from the esoteric nature of the court.

 

[eyer]

Arlen Specter, former PA. senator (R), has been pushing for this for decades.

Any thoughts?

Specter should've been fracked decades ago...

 

[~hellbaby~]

No, I don't think they should. The audio tapes of the arguments are available fairly quickly and I don't see any need to have video recordings. To me, it would take away from the esoteric nature of the court.

I agree on one hand, the audio is out there and if cameras were there then there would be a bit of grandstanding for the camera as there is on the house and senate floor. Also, the oral arguements reference a lot of prior cases that the general public would not understand. Unless you are a lawyer you probably do not know what they are referring to. I've watched some specials where law students give mock arguements in front of one of the justices on cspan and it is interesting but without knowledge of the cases they refer to it is easy to get lost.

 

[~hellbaby~]

Specter should've been fracked decades ago...

What did he do you don't agree with?

 

[eyer]

What did he do you don't agree with?

Ran for office...

 

[cjh]

congress has no more business prescribing the court's internal operating procedures than does the court prescribing congress's.

 

[Byron In Exile]

congress has no more business prescribing the court's internal operating procedures than does the court prescribing congress's.

If Congress can require citizens to buy goods and services, they certainly can require cameras in the Supreme Court.

 

[phrodeau]

But then everyone could tell that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wears the same pair of earrings every day.

 

[Byron In Exile]

But then everyone could tell that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wears the same pair of earrings every day.

The people have a right to know that.

 

[~hellbaby~]

congress has no more business prescribing the court's internal operating procedures than does the court prescribing congress's.

They could pass legislation but in the long run the court would have the final decision. If they did try to do that it would create a terrible amout of friction. I don't think they would, it is a bad idea. They threaten it as a way to get the court to agree. There is a reason the founders set up our government with a separation of powers, congress would be overstepping its boundries.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

No, I don't think they should. The audio tapes of the arguments are available fairly quickly and I don't see any need to have video recordings. To me, it would take away from the esoteric nature of the court.

I am glad they decided to release the audio oral arguments, though. But I agree, the cameras wouldn't add that much. The audio is what is important.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I am glad they decided to release the audio oral arguments, though. But I agree, the cameras wouldn't add that much. The audio is what is important.

Me too. I listen to all of them, and try to read all the decisions when they are released.

It's true, I have no life.

 

[~hellbaby~]

If Congress can require citizens to buy goods and services, they certainly can require cameras in the Supreme Court.

But they cannot do

 

[~hellbaby~]

Ran for office...

I should have known better than to expect an intelligent answer worth reading from you

 

[Byron In Exile]

They could pass legislation but in the long run the court would have the final decision.

I doubt it.

If they did try to do that it would create a terrible amout of friction. I don't think they would, it is a bad idea. They threaten it as a way to get the court to agree.

Friction is a good thing.

There is a reason the founders set up our government with a separation of powers, congress would be overstepping its boundries.

No, not really. The Supreme Court itself is a creation of law. Congress makes the laws.

 

[eyer]

I should have known better than to expect an intelligent answer worth reading from you

All your children are grown and gone now...

...aren't they?

 

[Byron In Exile]

But they cannot do

Was there more?

 

[eyer]

Congress is the creation and representative of the People.

Congress established America's republican form of government, which includes itself (the Legislative), the Executive, and the Judicial branches...

...the People ratified that Constitution.

The People, through their representative Congress, dictate the powers of all 3 branches...

...and when the People deem Congress no longer serves its interests, then it is the Declared, natural right of the People to rid themselves of government that no longer serves Them.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Congress is the creation and representative of the People.

Congress established America's republican form of government, which includes itself (the Legislative), the Executive, and the Judicial branches...

...the People ratified that Constitution.

The People, through their representative Congress, dictate the powers of all 3 branches...

...and when the People deem Congress no longer serves its interests, then it is the Declared, natural right of the People to rid themselves of government that no longer serves Them.

If the people want cameras, by the gods there will be cameras.

And the first thing they record will be Souter's corpse.

 

[cjh]

I doubt it.

Friction is a good thing.

No, not really. The Supreme Court itself is a creation of law. Congress makes the laws.

reread marbury v. madison and article iii of the constitution. you're sort of right and sort of not.

inferior courts are statutory creatures. and congress defines their procedures in theory, though in practice it delegates that responsibility primarily to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS is a constitutional creature, not a statutory one; that said, congress has the power to define much of its jurisdiction.

deciding how to conduct its own hearings and how to decide cases is one of the inherent powers of the court; although the lines of what is and is not inherent in the court's power are not clear, i doubt congress would be willing to force such a rule on the court without the court's consent.

i don't know that SCOTUS has ever considered congress's right to prescribe its procedures.

 

[Byron In Exile]

reread marbury v. madison and article iii of the constitution. you're sort of right and sort of not.

inferior courts are statutory creatures. and congress defines their procedures in theory, though in practice it delegates that responsibility primarily to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS is a constitutional creature, not a statutory one; congress has the power to define much of its jurisdiction; deciding how to conduct its own hearings and how to decide cases is one of the inherent powers of the court; although the lines of what is and is not inherent in the court's power is not clear, i doubt congress would be willing to force such a rule on the court without the court's consent.

i don't know that SCOTUS has ever considered congress's right to prescribe its procedures.

Requiring an A/V record of its proceedings hardly qualifies as prescribing its procedures.

Isn't the written record required by law?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

reread marbury v. madison and article iii of the constitution. you're sort of right and sort of not.

inferior courts are statutory creatures. and congress defines their procedures in theory, though in practice it delegates that responsibility primarily to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS is a constitutional creature, not a statutory one; that said, congress has the power to define much of its jurisdiction.

deciding how to conduct its own hearings and how to decide cases is one of the inherent powers of the court; although the lines of what is and is not inherent in the court's power are not clear, i doubt congress would be willing to force such a rule on the court without the court's consent.

i don't know that SCOTUS has ever considered congress's right to prescribe its procedures.

Who let this knowledgeable, informed, carefully considered post in here?

 

[cjh]

Requiring an A/V record of its proceedings hardly qualifies as prescribing its procedures.

Isn't the written record required by law?

i don't know whether it is required by statute; i've never had any reason to research that.

in a criminal setting, it's required by the sixth amendment; and i suppose that since there is a statutory right to appeal in civil as well as criminal cases, it's required by the due process clause; you can't appeal with a record.

the federal courts have not budges on their no-broadcast rules in the face of first amendment challenges; that is a procedural rule to which they are particularly attached: "The bases for denying cameras access to courtrooms have not changed much since 1965. The Judicial Conference and the federal courts still believe live television coverage distracts trial participants, unfairly affects the outcome of trials and diminishes the dignity of the courts." http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/cameras-in-the-courtroom

to the extent that SCOTUS believes its consideration of the issue will be impaired in some way by permitting cameras into the courtroom, it's a significant procedural issue.

 

[~hellbaby~]

Was there more?

There was supposed to be a 'that' in there.