No, there shouldn't be any cameras in the court b/c the news media will end up just taking snippets of the trial and leave out IMPORTANT details of the ruling. For example, in Lawrence vs Texas, the news media can show Anthony Kennedy saying that gays can have sex if they want to but won't cover him saying that it doesn't automatically lead to marriage. Also, we don't want justices to rule b/c they want to 'look good' but to have SUBSTANCE.
this is very important - the us supreme court has often acted as the tail wagging the dog ( the us constitution is the DOG ) ( it barks and bites and has a head - the US president elected and working through two more chambers ). The US supreme court has the function of delivering justice - which it often has NOT as it has been hijacked by political players to serve narrow ends
@amaghrebi1 like when the five conservative justices (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Thomas) decided that free money equals free speech; therefore, corporations can donate as much money as they damn please in federal elections...
@19cc88 - corporations donating money is a little like stealing from the tax pot by governments - everyone should have access to money as long as what the money is being used for is clear - we can see and hear and take part in outcomes that money brings
@TyVulpine I already expressed it - Look at Elena Kagan's before the SJC as a simple case. To me, the fact it is televised makes the "two side of the aisle effect" intensified: many of the questions asked and the discourse has little to do with checking her qualifications but rather, to make a public political statements using this event (televised) as a trampoline. I do not want to see the supreme court become a farce ...
@skinnym974 hmmmm.. / television I am afraid is very difficult to keep out of public life as it has taken over as the most important medium available for broadcasting to the public ( to begin with - it is very cheap now - in china 15 inch sets costs less than 50 US dollars and consume 60 watt electricity - same as a light bulb - easy to power using a solar panel and so portable too )
@kagansnutsack yes- I think she has the chance to bring some real justice - having spent many years as an academic , there are many lawyers out there who 'owe' her and she can push for some real changes in attitude
Thinking of it, I am not for cameras in the court house - everything televised in the US turn into a farce and a joke or a ideological battlefield for the sake of entertainment and fame. The supreme court is the last line of hope for integrity and while we may think cameras will not change anything to the professionalism of our justice court, I would deffer in thinking that soon enough, it will.
@skinnym974 cameras in the court are really for the lay public to get a feel for what their hard earned tax dollars are paying for- the media feeding frenzy that follows as a circus is largely a lot to do with human nature - after all- if you are not 'in' ( the tax pot is massive compared to any 'private' enterprise - ) you might as well have a party looking 'in' from outside
I agree with her. I think we have the right to see whats behind the curtains in cases important enough to reach the supreme court. Maybe it would open more eyes to the seriousness of current events. Then again, it may do the opposite.
Yet another admirable attempt to shift the focus from the woman's qualifications to her personal life. But I don't think this little rumor (begun by conservatives, no doubt) is going to prevent Kagan from being confirmed. Better luck next time.
@justonemorename an important point. SG Kagan's point about banning books is not analogous to the actions of the British prior to the Revolutionary war. And while the Republicans have attempted to analogize the two, they are not the same thing. In Citizens United, there was a private corporation attempting to use its power to circumvent the election laws. This is a far cry from the Thomas Payne example used by Senator Sessions when the British government was trying to surpress all dissent.
Wow, with insightful observations like that, you could work for the C.I.A. Stop the interrogations, everyone, just see if people look to the right, and you'll put psychics out of business.
Kagan and Napolitano-----Sorta reminds me of two water buffaloes "in season" This woman is unqualified. The Supreme Court is far too important to turn it over to a bunch Obama Trolls, Flunkies and Droids. Don’t let him place someone like her on the court. Anti American, Anti-Gun Anti –Military NO! Time to announce plans to filibuster her allow her an opportunity to withdraw her name. Kagan the first Hobit to the SCOTUS
I was going to say something intellectual as a reply to your comment, then I realized you spelled "Hobit." Why don't you go click on a banner ad and get yourself a GED first. Obama wants high school dropouts to go back to school.
This has been flagged as spam show
No, there shouldn't be any cameras in the court b/c the news media will end up just taking snippets of the trial and leave out IMPORTANT details of the ruling. For example, in Lawrence vs Texas, the news media can show Anthony Kennedy saying that gays can have sex if they want to but won't cover him saying that it doesn't automatically lead to marriage. Also, we don't want justices to rule b/c they want to 'look good' but to have SUBSTANCE.
unknownunknowns 10 months ago
this is very important - the us supreme court has often acted as the tail wagging the dog ( the us constitution is the DOG ) ( it barks and bites and has a head - the US president elected and working through two more chambers ). The US supreme court has the function of delivering justice - which it often has NOT as it has been hijacked by political players to serve narrow ends
amaghrebi1 1 year ago
@amaghrebi1 like when the five conservative justices (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Thomas) decided that free money equals free speech; therefore, corporations can donate as much money as they damn please in federal elections...
19cc88 1 year ago
@19cc88 - corporations donating money is a little like stealing from the tax pot by governments - everyone should have access to money as long as what the money is being used for is clear - we can see and hear and take part in outcomes that money brings
amaghrebi1 1 year ago
@TyVulpine I already expressed it - Look at Elena Kagan's before the SJC as a simple case. To me, the fact it is televised makes the "two side of the aisle effect" intensified: many of the questions asked and the discourse has little to do with checking her qualifications but rather, to make a public political statements using this event (televised) as a trampoline. I do not want to see the supreme court become a farce ...
skinnym974 1 year ago
@skinnym974 hmmmm.. / television I am afraid is very difficult to keep out of public life as it has taken over as the most important medium available for broadcasting to the public ( to begin with - it is very cheap now - in china 15 inch sets costs less than 50 US dollars and consume 60 watt electricity - same as a light bulb - easy to power using a solar panel and so portable too )
amaghrebi1 1 year ago
she will have the biggest balls in court
kagansnutsack 1 year ago
@kagansnutsack yes- I think she has the chance to bring some real justice - having spent many years as an academic , there are many lawyers out there who 'owe' her and she can push for some real changes in attitude
amaghrebi1 1 year ago
Thinking of it, I am not for cameras in the court house - everything televised in the US turn into a farce and a joke or a ideological battlefield for the sake of entertainment and fame. The supreme court is the last line of hope for integrity and while we may think cameras will not change anything to the professionalism of our justice court, I would deffer in thinking that soon enough, it will.
skinnym974 1 year ago
@skinnym974 cameras in the court are really for the lay public to get a feel for what their hard earned tax dollars are paying for- the media feeding frenzy that follows as a circus is largely a lot to do with human nature - after all- if you are not 'in' ( the tax pot is massive compared to any 'private' enterprise - ) you might as well have a party looking 'in' from outside
amaghrebi1 1 year ago
I agree with her. I think we have the right to see whats behind the curtains in cases important enough to reach the supreme court. Maybe it would open more eyes to the seriousness of current events. Then again, it may do the opposite.
GISMCONFUSE 1 year ago
@GISMCONFUSE disclosure and the search for the truth is always in the end the best policy to pursue !
amaghrebi1 1 year ago
what a pack of heebs
HaroldsCatsRevenge 1 year ago
Why do we the delusional liberals often pick human toilet lesbians and homosexuals for office?
icicioic 1 year ago
Yet another admirable attempt to shift the focus from the woman's qualifications to her personal life. But I don't think this little rumor (begun by conservatives, no doubt) is going to prevent Kagan from being confirmed. Better luck next time.
MrEmperoricecream 1 year ago
Wow. She looks like kevin james!
cambiker011 1 year ago
@justonemorename an important point. SG Kagan's point about banning books is not analogous to the actions of the British prior to the Revolutionary war. And while the Republicans have attempted to analogize the two, they are not the same thing. In Citizens United, there was a private corporation attempting to use its power to circumvent the election laws. This is a far cry from the Thomas Payne example used by Senator Sessions when the British government was trying to surpress all dissent.
HisMajesty984 1 year ago
kagan is a bitch that wants to take all our rights away she is a communist cunt
jimmyz45t 1 year ago
shes lying you can tell her eyes are pointing too right and then up sometimes so yea
goarmy979 1 year ago
@goarmy979
Wow, with insightful observations like that, you could work for the C.I.A. Stop the interrogations, everyone, just see if people look to the right, and you'll put psychics out of business.
mohawk5010 1 year ago
@mohawk5010 lol your joking right lol
goarmy979 1 year ago
Kagan and Napolitano-----Sorta reminds me of two water buffaloes "in season" This woman is unqualified. The Supreme Court is far too important to turn it over to a bunch Obama Trolls, Flunkies and Droids. Don’t let him place someone like her on the court. Anti American, Anti-Gun Anti –Military NO! Time to announce plans to filibuster her allow her an opportunity to withdraw her name. Kagan the first Hobit to the SCOTUS
dkkght46 1 year ago
@dkkght46 Janet Napolitano and Kagan, neither one is qualify to be Dog Catcher!
Sylmarman 1 year ago
@dkkght46
I was going to say something intellectual as a reply to your comment, then I realized you spelled "Hobit." Why don't you go click on a banner ad and get yourself a GED first. Obama wants high school dropouts to go back to school.
mohawk5010 1 year ago
@mohawk5010 Hobbit, happy now? Besides it was all Bush's fault!
dkkght46 1 year ago