Should arguments before the Supreme Court be televised?

[ryan8558]

No live broadcast of the OBAMACARE arguments. I think they should be televised as should everything being argued before that court. What do y'all think?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ras-at-health-care-arguments/?test=latestnews

 

[JohnnySavage]

No
...

 

[ryan8558]

So the people have no right to know the arguments being put on by both sides?

 

[JohnnySavage]

So the people have no right to know the arguments being put on by both sides?

Read the briefs. Read the transcripts. Listen to the audio.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

So the people have no right to know the arguments being put on by both sides?

Seriously? Do you honestly believe that people would listen to this with an open mind. People know which side their political party supports. That is enough for them. A few have even memorized the talking points their party puts out on the subject.....

 

[ryan8558]

Why are the justices so camera shy? Maybe they shouldn't be sleeping while the court is in session.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Why are the justices so camera shy? Maybe they shouldn't be sleeping while the court is in session.

You are kinda dumb.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I see no reason not to televise it. I don't know how much money it costs to operate a television station but we've got one that seems to just follow congress 24/7 I don't see a reason not to televise Supreme Court decisions. Sure there are cases like the Health Care bill that everybody already knows their stance on but there are many more issues that people aren't even aware of.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Further, there's no point in televising the arguments because the case has normally been decided prior to the argument by counsel. The argument phase is merely an opportunity for the justices to raise points to the other justices via the attorney standing there.

 

[unregistered]

 

[ryan8558]

You are kinda dumb.

Could be, but if I can see the speechs from the floor of the Senate and the House on CSPAN, I should be able to see the arguments from the Court. That is just another freedom that should be allowed and not hidden from view of the little people.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Could be, but if I can see the speechs from the floor of the Senate and the House on CSPAN, I should be able to see the arguments from the Court. That is just another freedom that should be allowed and not hidden from view of the little people.

It's not hidden from view. Anyone can go and watch an argument in person. Why should the justices and lawyers be put on stage like they are some dancing monkeys? They are doing important things and shouldn't have to put on a show for the cameras.

 

[1sickbastard]

I see no driving reason to televise it, all it would do is inject more politics into what is supposed to be an apolitical arm of government.

I agree.

The Supreme Court doesn't allow television cameras because it infringes on the dignity of the court. The 9 people are making tremendiously important decisions that affect the entire US legal system. Turning it into another media circus would have no positive effect.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Congress makes important decisions as well and they get televised. Setting up a few cameras so interested parties who happen to not live in DC can watch isn't turning them into dancing monkeys.

Mind you I don't honestly care, its not like I would watch it. I just don't really understand the oppositition to it.

 

[ryan8558]

It's not hidden from view. Anyone can go and watch an argument in person. Why should the justices and lawyers be put on stage like they are some dancing monkeys? They are doing important things and shouldn't have to put on a show for the cameras.

I'm sure the space in the gallery is limited and 1200 miles is a ways to go to see the arguments. I'm sorry but these justices and lawyers are on a stage. One of the biggest in the country. The should be able to handle the exposure. They have had years on the bench and should not be put off by a tv camera.

 

[ryan8558]

Mind you I'm not talking about making it a media circus. Make it one camera like CSPAN. No reporters, no talking heads, no interruptions.

 

[Drixxx]

No live broadcast of the OBAMACARE arguments. I think they should be televised as should everything being argued before that court. What do y'all think?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ras-at-health-care-arguments/?test=latestnews

I've been saying this for years. It's the people's court, not a secret court. The public's right to know trumps all other arguments.

 

[cjh]

I'm sure the space in the gallery is limited and 1200 miles is a ways to go to see the arguments. I'm sorry but these justices and lawyers are on a stage. One of the biggest in the country. The should be able to handle the exposure. They have had years on the bench and should not be put off by a tv camera.

the court's concern is that the lawyers would end up treating it like a stage.

the point of oral argument is for the court to raise concerns and questions and for the attorneys to address them. it's an occasion for a dialogue, not for political grandstanding.

and unlike the executive and legislative branches, which are answerable to the people, judges are answerable to the law. you elect legislators and presidents. you do not elect federal judges.

you have an interest in court proceedings, no doubt. how is that interest not served by a quickly available audio recording?

 

[unregistered]

 

[ksmybuttons]

Mind you I'm not talking about making it a media circus. Make it one camera like CSPAN. No reporters, no talking heads, no interruptions.

They post the audio here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/

I think for the dignity of the Court, there is no need to televise. I have no problem.

 

[ryan8558]

Congress is a political organization.

And the court is not???

 

[cjh]

And the court is not???

at its best, it is not.

 

[Drixxx]

the court's concern is that the lawyers would end up treating it like a stage.

the point of oral argument is for the court to raise concerns and questions and for the attorneys to address them. it's an occasion for a dialogue, not for political grandstanding.

and unlike the executive and legislative branches, which are answerable to the people, judges are answerable to the law. you elect legislators and presidents. you do not elect federal judges.

you have an interest in court proceedings, no doubt. how is that interest not served by a quickly available audio recording?

Sorry. The people's right to know is much more important that a grandstanding lawyer. Besides it's a judges job to maintain decorum. Are you telling me Supreme Court Justices are too weak to maintain order in their own courtroom? If that's the case they shouldn't be justices in the first place.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

Sorry. The people's right to know is much more important that a grandstanding lawyer. Besides it's a judges job to maintain decorum. Are you telling me Supreme Court Justices are too weak to maintain order in their own courtroom? If that's the case they shouldn't be justices in the first place.

what prevents you from knowing?

of what, exactly, is the public deprived?