Justice Scalia on Cameras in the Court

[TheJasonDR]

I would love to see that

[reel1840]

one close look.uswe.state.gov.3330/

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, CSPAN.

[exenrontexas]

Scalia is a toad. He is UNQUALIFIED to say what the people will say or not say. The fact is that the PEOPLE have an absolute right to know what the government is doing in their name with their money.

[unknownunknowns]

@exenrontexas Yes but that's why you can always read their WRITINGS. By not implementing cameras you'll be forced to READ and not misinterpret their rulings which can be very important to the direction of the country.

[exenrontexas]

@unknownunknowns Reading the opinions is good but the video is far more expeditious and you get to hear the passion and inflection of their voices. The printed word usually does not convey that. You will be able to hear the disgust and deceit in Scalia's voice when talking about human rights and the Constitution.

[unknownunknowns]

@exenrontexas Yes, but hearing someone's voice can be more misinterpreted than the written to understand what they mean. Being in front of the camera changes the way you behave and in a deceitful one just to make the viewers happy and that not the judge's job. 

[exenrontexas]

@unknownunknowns Perhaps but the reverse is also often true. Why is it that my local government will only talk to me over the phone and never email me. I KNOW they have email but if it is over the phone they can say that I misunderstood them or there is no record of it. My doctor just got email and he hates it for the same reasons. I love it because I don't have to play telephone tag to reach him. Do you understand this? I believe in as open a government as possible.

[parafleet]

Scalia, cameras should be allowed because the U.S. Constitution doesn't say they shouldn't be.

Ha! Suck on that one, poochie.

[socalcraigster]

@parafleet - Just because it is not mentioned in the Constitution does not make it something that cannot be prevented or regulation. In fact, the Constitution is supposed to set the boundaries of the Federal government's ability to interfere a state or individuals. You sound like a Schmuck.

[parafleet]

@socalcraigster It was a response to his statement that torture is not un-Constitutional. It was also a joke. High class calling names on YouTube, though. Good form.

[socalcraigster]

@parafleet - How is torture unconstitutional professor?

[johnluke1169]

I do not believe the Supreme Court should ever allow cameras in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ability to make impartial decisions and its majesty would be at stake, sound bytes would harm the process.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

I respect Scalia but I not arrogance. We are interested because with massive federalism every Supreme Court case changes laws around the country. To proclaim that we are either uninterested or too stupid to understand is what I would expect from progressives on the court. I'm a paralegal graduate so it does interest me.

[VictorLepanto]

@ToxicOdiousOne: That is NOT what he is saying. He is saying that some politically interested lawyer will just spout off some sensational statement for the cameras so as to manipulate public perceptions. If he is leftist lawyer, the CNN NPR type news organisations will be all too glad to repeat that statement again & again. This is all most people will ever see & thus a misperception will deliberately be created to advance a political agenda.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

We do want to watch. We want transparency. The Supreme Court will be no less respected with transparency. Maintaining secrecy actually does harm to the institution. Why don't they want transparency? What skeletons do they have to hide?

[mrwnt10]

@ToxicOdiousOne

There is already a good deal of transparency. All oral statements and majority and dissenting opinions are already public, as well as audio recordings of the same.

[smo699]

@ToxicOdiousOne Scalia answered that question. They fear that the judicial process will be digressed into quick soundbytes and a forum for political influence. Read the opinions; those are good enough.  Rather, I'd be more concerned about the secrecy of the Executive branch than any other.

[johnielsen08]

Amen. Exactly.

[JeffreyJayFisher]

JesusChristForeverAmen blogspot

[Gamble2185]

for the people that do want to watch we should be able to.. screw the nonpatriotic media zombies.

[smg1one]

the Supreme Court... Witnesses, Informants and Experts dont testify before appellate courts, Lawyers do. When the Supreme Court decided that I couldnt vote for my County Commissioner I had to read about it from some expert journalists interpretation rather than see the actual arguments. Democracy of, by and for the ppl or do they get to do it all in the dark? He's right about how it will happen but wrong about how the US works...we're already misinformed Let that ONE person see the truth

[FAHayek89]

As the news media picks up soundbites, Justices may alter their questions and comments so as to be picked up on the news with a great soundbite. They may shy away from legally important but unpopular comments and questions. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a Constitutional republic, and the court certainly isn't an elected branch. The Justices are bound to the text of the law, even if it contradicts the immediate popular will of the people. Cameras may undermine that.

[smg1one]

Watching the Nomination process of Judge Sotomayor it seems obvious that the Senate Judiciary Committee would be helped a lot if they saw what actually goes on during oral arguments. The positives of the educational benefits out way the negatives of Justices being tempted to play to the media.

[goodlife430]

I agree with Scalia and O'Connnor. I believe placing cameras inside Courtrooms would destroy our justice system. Witnesses, informants, experts are already hesitant to testify in open Court. Without witnesses, informants, and experts our justice system would ultimately fail. People don't want the Court system to turn into a montage of talk show hosts from liberal and conservative sides dissecting snippets for their own bias'. It is already open to the public, just go and sit inside the Court.

[mad4maddow]

wow. you cut sandra day right off. yet you have vids of kennedy, thomas , souter and breyer about this same issue.

apparently, scalia has a point about editing for effect.

[MS1719ms]

He's wrong!! I want to know! and I would watch. I'm an avid c-span watcher all so. They work for us, and we have a right to know.

[cherrydog9]

you shouldn't deny public access to view the proceedings at the third branch of government because you're afraid of misrepresentation by certain media outlets. this happens anyway with all politics: foxnews being the most egregious example