It’s Time for the Supreme Court to be Heard

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. heh says:

    Excellent post until the last sentence, which advances a poor precedent. Televising congressional proceedings may have “brought Congress into America[]’s living rooms,” but few would argue that it has enhanced the quality of congressional debate; most would argue quite the opposite. I certainly wouldn’t use that as an argument for earlier release of S. Ct. proceedings.

  2. Scott Moss says:

    It’s fair to criticize Congress (they sure deserve it), but I really don’t think TV ruined any golden era of serious deliberation, as this empirical study shows:

    # Senators Beaten Nearly To Death on the Senate Floor Before TV Invented: 1

    # After TV Invented: 0

    This reminds me of people complaining about how political campaigns have gotten so ugly due to TV, or blogs, or big money, or some other such villain of the month. Politics was FAR uglier and more corrupt from the 19th century through at least the 1920s than it is today, complete with false allegations of love children and drunkenness, flat-out purchasing of influence of the sort that would invite a special prosecutor today….

    In short, any failing of current politics (1) probably used to be worse and (2) isn’t the fault of new communications technology.

  3. Correctamundo says:

    # Presidents impeached for consorting with their interns before TV invented: 0

    # After TV invented: 1

    In short, if Scott Moss’ argument above is right, then TV has ruined the quality of our Presidents.

  4. Joe says:

    I support audio for the basic reasons put forth here. I do think media accounts, including by court watchers, did a decent job of suggesting the effects of Justice Thomas’ remarks. [Query: Did it really change votes?]

    And, one often can tell by the question (usefully, and remarkable for taking so long, transcripts now label the justices speaking) the nature of the question. Dahlia Lithwick also has done some good reporting in her Slate columns in fleshing out the personalities of orals.

    Still, this is an inexact science, and I don’t understand the point of not releasing audio ala the few times they did broadcast it on C-SPAN, having still pictures of the justices (and advocates) present when relevant.