(cont.) We want them to rule in SUBSTANCE. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort and we want them to be as UNBIASED as possible, so we want to take them VERY SERIOUSLY.
No, there shouldn't be any cameras in the court b/c the news media like Clarence Thomas has said 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'. (cont.)
BL: wants to sell the USA RFID implants? Sonia Sotomayor? will go through 2, 5, 10, 15 maybe 20? ,,, not! Still here and kicking just cuz he was older? Tent kisses? MO still trying to find some justification? end sex laws now. Army, Acorn, I guess the truth means nothing anymore to anyone.
Transparency of accountable officials in public proceedings will only breed respect. If they fear the backlash of the citizens then perhaps they need such observation.
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? It's not like we can vote you out of office. Perhaps you're scared we will find you abusing your powers or something even worse?
You are a public official, your life is not your own, it belongs to us - just like a soldier. Don't like it - do something else.
lol and who will fund all these cameras? tax payer thats who. as far as I can tell we have enough government spending already. besides and don't see how is it going to improve anything - they will make their decisions in private if secrecy will be required.
I think cameras should be in the Supreme Court. After all, these judges make very important rulings that effect the whole country. The people need to see this.
50% of the Supreme Court are JEWS and the other 50% are Catholics. Elena Kagan will be another JEW to be confirmed as a Justice. Is this representative of America? FUCK NO! Why do you think they call it the JEW-dicial system! The Supreme Court is the most corrupt court in the world!
@NewChristianSoldiers 50% I don't think so, BTW, basic math, a 9 member body could never be 50/50, closest would be 55/44.
Let's see Jews: Kagan, Ginsburg...ummm Breyer's not a Jew is he? Not getting to 4 I'm afraid. There are a strangely high % of Jews/Catholics on the Senate Judiciary Cmte and the Court, i think on the court it's because they draw most candidates from the NE, specifically Harvard, other Ivy League grads.
What's funny about all this is that when you look at the record of the two newest justices. You'll also find that they are the most fascist.
They're comfortable with cameras being in the courtroom, not because they care about transparency, but because they believe that they are untouchable and like the idea of displaying the fact that they're thumbing their nose at us. I mean, Kagan she doesn't even believe we have a right to choose for ourselves what we can eat FFS
Screw the Fed. Gov't and its self-serving croney laws...ignore them and disrespect Fed. Officials whenever possible. Either that or become a slave to the desire of the criminal scum who control the gov't.
@anryth Oh, I think that would be fabulous since they will not let us audit the Fed, lets see what goes on and how "they" come to their conclusions. Now that would be really interesting.
Even though, greater public transparency is a noble goal. Sometimes, it's important for governments to autonomy, in order to conduct efficiently (at least, in theory). I mean look at Congress. Because it is so transparent, it's nothing more but a show for people to see.
Plus, if we have a semi-autonomous branch, we effectively maintain the checks and balances system. If the people (legislature) make a constitutional mistake, the courts are here to settle it.
They should not put cameras in the Supreme Court. All that would result in is that every single pundit will pressure the Court into bending to their will or the will of the majority which is something that should be avoided.
Cameras in the court room are not going to change the fact that government is built on the violation of the Non Aggression Principle and therefore is fundamentally immoral and unsustainable.
Sorry Reason TV; but as a fan of yours, this is one video I disagree with. Shit get done more efficiently and more truthfully behind closed doors in this case. Yes ideality full public disclosure in very facet of the judgment process is wanted in theory but in practice I believe it will lead to more dishonesty and a charade of acting before the public, much like what the politicians do
The start of this video is dishonest, and that is what I like most about Reason TV, your honesty.
From 0:00 to :50 the language, imagery, and sound that is used is not being honest. They are trying to make the view feel like the Supreme courts point of view is threatening compared to the point that the voice over is about to make. I think that kind of presentation is dishonest. I like reasonTV, but I don’t like the dishonest approach to the set up to this video.
I don’t think ReasonTV needs a catchy deceptive intro with scary overtones. I think the content which drives me to watch is enough; like in the many other videos. As a libertarian I want a rational argument from both points of view without dishonesty so I can choose fairly. Let the rational sell the idea, not fear.
I understand the sentiment, but Reason isn't using actual scare tactics, they are parodying them.
Not for one second did I actually think Reason was trying to scare me, I knew it was a joke from the beginning. Even if you didn't catch it from the onset, the line "there's even been a camera in Katie Couric" should have tipped you off. I'm pretty sure most people understood that this was a farcical setup.
Different strokes for different folks though I guess.
I remember seeing an affirmative action case being heard in a lower federal court about a year ago or 2. It was broadcast on C-SPAN. I don't remember exactly which one, but it was quite interesting. If a lower court can do it, why can't the Supreme Court??
Frankly, I think the cameras should be removed from court rooms, they have no business there. If you want to see a proceeding then go down there for yourself.
Camera's in the Supreme Court is a terrible idea. Camera's in the court room hasn't led to better judgements -- usually worse like O.J. Simpson trial. I know that the merits can be debated, but I really don't see a real good.
@EnricCirne Perhaps, but it is fairly certain that bad decisions have been made due to lack of accountability. The decisions of US v Miller, Wickard v. Filburn, and US v. Carolene Products were all due to behind the scenes dealing and concealed interests.
@phonepimpbill Since the perfect is the enemy of the good, the question probably is which is the higher good. Generalizing to our form of Government, there's good reasons the Founding Fathers chose representative democracy to direct democracy. The influence of the mob and current sentiment working against the greater good as happened in ancient Greek direct democracy. Much of the problems in California can probably be attributed to the direct democracy ballot initiative process & term limits.
There should be cameras in ALL government offices. Let us see how many people are sleeping at their desks. Let us see all the secret union deals. Let us see and hear all the bullshit from all government. Then maybe the citizens will one day realize that these people really aren't that smart at all, and a free market and the freedom of human behavior is in the best interest of the country.
Nothing of any significant scandal happens as these politicians do their job. Where I want cameras is in the elevators, the water cooler, the cafeteria, the coffee pot. That is where the fate of nations are decided, not out on the floor of congress. What happens on C-SPAN is just the execution, not the actual decision making process. Why should public servants be allowed ANY degree of privacy at all? They are in control of our fucking lives!
finally something I agree with. how is freedom of speech a "conservative" ideal? it's liberal to the core. We want the liberty of seeing what's going on in there.
Free speech is a classic liberal idea, but not a neo liberal idea. Neo liberals would ban hate speech if given the chance, and neo conservatives would ban scientists from teaching evolution like they try to ban teachers from doing in schools.
@oldhacks it's to do with history: traditionally, conservatives were liberal, or more accurately, libertarian in many of their views. It's only in more recent times that they've become fuck-pigs.
@takerdust omg. liberals want more and more freedom. conservatives want things to stay the way they are. progressives and traditionalists. thats the divide.
ReasonTV makes some terrible arguments on this one, but I do support cameras in the supreme court. There is a supreme court show in Canada ("Jurisprudence" on CPAC), and it's much more interesting than the blather that comes from the House of Commons.
It is time that we as American citizen-sovereigns start to take command of our government again. Remember that all aspects of the US Governmmnet is legally and figuratevely subordinate to us the citizen. We are the only nation on earth that has this flow of power from God to Citizen to Government.
Quit asking their opinion and command them to enact our wishes as a free and open republic. Assert your power and issue the edicts for them to follow. Take command. Take responsibility and act.
ReasonTv dropped the ball on this one. I sorta agree on there being cameras, but then again Justices dont wanna be swayed by public opinion. That is why they are not voted in. (Although the people who nominate them are not very good either). This would not be an issue if we had private courts, but thats a different story. ReasonTv should not have attacked strong and good justices opinions and sided with the new ones that have no idea what justice even is.
Oral transcripts and audio recordings are available to anyone. I listened to the entire Citizen's United case. This video is overly dramatic and under truthful. The cases are out there to be heard or read yet Nick comes on like a harbinger of evil. And then there are those in the comments section who willingly just goes along with the video and just regurgitates big brother rhetoric. I'm perfectly content being able to listen to cases. Why do we need cameras again?
Do we really need grand-standing and a dumbing down of arguments in the Supreme Court, the last bastion of the rule of law in these United States? Its not like it's some secret society, you can read all the oral arguments anywhere on the internet.
I think that there should be less policing of people with cameras, and more cameras on the people who are employed by us taxpayers. Everything is currently backwards.
The more cameras the more transparency. All government agencies should be recorded and all footage open to the public. If the government can video tape the citizens to benefit itself, then we should absolutely have the same.
TRUE Demorcracy is in the High level of TRANSPERANCY.
1rayloke 3 months ago
(cont.) We want them to rule in SUBSTANCE. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort and we want them to be as UNBIASED as possible, so we want to take them VERY SERIOUSLY.
unknownunknowns 10 months ago
No, there shouldn't be any cameras in the court b/c the news media like Clarence Thomas has said 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'. (cont.)
unknownunknowns 10 months ago
lol i think this video is just a joke^^
like stuff from onion news
MrWsad 11 months ago
can the us supreme court be sued for denial of civil rights case
spymaine89 1 year ago
@spymaine89 No. Judges have absolute immunity from suit.
MitchConnor83 6 months ago
Wow! I wasn't sure what my position was on the whole camera debate but after watching this... BRING IN THE CAMERAS!!
bornthug213 1 year ago
BL: wants to sell the USA RFID implants? Sonia Sotomayor? will go through 2, 5, 10, 15 maybe 20? ,,, not! Still here and kicking just cuz he was older? Tent kisses? MO still trying to find some justification? end sex laws now. Army, Acorn, I guess the truth means nothing anymore to anyone.
Keither9 1 year ago
Transparency of accountable officials in public proceedings will only breed respect. If they fear the backlash of the citizens then perhaps they need such observation.
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? It's not like we can vote you out of office. Perhaps you're scared we will find you abusing your powers or something even worse?
You are a public official, your life is not your own, it belongs to us - just like a soldier. Don't like it - do something else.
redthor77 1 year ago
A look up Katies butt was far more interesting than being trapped in a motor home trip with a lawyer worried about a pube on his coke can.
RWRamo 1 year ago
lol and who will fund all these cameras? tax payer thats who. as far as I can tell we have enough government spending already. besides and don't see how is it going to improve anything - they will make their decisions in private if secrecy will be required.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
I think cameras should be in the Supreme Court. After all, these judges make very important rulings that effect the whole country. The people need to see this.
SharkDude1 1 year ago
We have too many tv cameras as it is, and way too much playing to the camera because of it.
Keep cameras out of the Supreme Court. We have audio, we have transcripts, we have eyewitnesses, that's enough.
All this constantly videotaping, cameras etc has turned society into a little bit of a freakshow. Everything doesn't have to be taped.
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
50% of the Supreme Court are JEWS and the other 50% are Catholics. Elena Kagan will be another JEW to be confirmed as a Justice. Is this representative of America? FUCK NO! Why do you think they call it the JEW-dicial system! The Supreme Court is the most corrupt court in the world!
NewChristianSoldiers 1 year ago
@NewChristianSoldiers And so was Jesus Christ, a Nazarene, you antisematic prick.
bowenit 1 year ago
@NewChristianSoldiers 50% I don't think so, BTW, basic math, a 9 member body could never be 50/50, closest would be 55/44.
Let's see Jews: Kagan, Ginsburg...ummm Breyer's not a Jew is he? Not getting to 4 I'm afraid. There are a strangely high % of Jews/Catholics on the Senate Judiciary Cmte and the Court, i think on the court it's because they draw most candidates from the NE, specifically Harvard, other Ivy League grads.
RuflessRecords 1 year ago
"... the Supreme Court has stoned him cold." xD hahahah!
PlayTilTheyBleed 1 year ago
What's funny about all this is that when you look at the record of the two newest justices. You'll also find that they are the most fascist.
They're comfortable with cameras being in the courtroom, not because they care about transparency, but because they believe that they are untouchable and like the idea of displaying the fact that they're thumbing their nose at us. I mean, Kagan she doesn't even believe we have a right to choose for ourselves what we can eat FFS
bigboss686 1 year ago
3:14 - "I have had good experiences with cameras."
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
Screw the Fed. Gov't and its self-serving croney laws...ignore them and disrespect Fed. Officials whenever possible. Either that or become a slave to the desire of the criminal scum who control the gov't.
chessgame1960 1 year ago
I have to ask. What is with the skulls at the end of the video?
jsebastianfilms 1 year ago
I think the SCOTUS should be televised because the government is supposed to be for the People, not for the rich.
LLORT3 1 year ago
how about a camera in on the federal reserve meetings too
anryth 1 year ago 17
@anryth Oh, I think that would be fabulous since they will not let us audit the Fed, lets see what goes on and how "they" come to their conclusions. Now that would be really interesting.
irisojects 1 year ago
@anryth How About A Camera At The BuildBerg Group Meeting!
SeaTownJoshTV 1 year ago
Even though, greater public transparency is a noble goal. Sometimes, it's important for governments to autonomy, in order to conduct efficiently (at least, in theory). I mean look at Congress. Because it is so transparent, it's nothing more but a show for people to see.
Plus, if we have a semi-autonomous branch, we effectively maintain the checks and balances system. If the people (legislature) make a constitutional mistake, the courts are here to settle it.
hansonslee 1 year ago
The latest two nominees may say they don't mind, but just wait until push comes to shove. They'll be grovelling like the rest of the group.
thefish103 1 year ago
"Begging and pleading..." lol
yamagoof 1 year ago
They should not put cameras in the Supreme Court. All that would result in is that every single pundit will pressure the Court into bending to their will or the will of the majority which is something that should be avoided.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
Cameras in the court room are not going to change the fact that government is built on the violation of the Non Aggression Principle and therefore is fundamentally immoral and unsustainable.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
@furyofbongos Well duh. Auditing the Fed isn't going to change its fundamental flaws either, but it's still something that ought to be done.
JETZcorp 1 year ago
Right - they are irremovable and they fear about cameras' influence????
grraadd 1 year ago
What are they hiding up their robes? A secret; a secret so horrible, so terrible, so unnerving that even Dick Cheney fears it.
llamalord111 1 year ago
Sorry Reason TV; but as a fan of yours, this is one video I disagree with. Shit get done more efficiently and more truthfully behind closed doors in this case. Yes ideality full public disclosure in very facet of the judgment process is wanted in theory but in practice I believe it will lead to more dishonesty and a charade of acting before the public, much like what the politicians do
The start of this video is dishonest, and that is what I like most about Reason TV, your honesty.
Yereviltwin2 1 year ago
@Yereviltwin2
What about the start of the video is dishonest?
schulwitz 1 year ago
@schulwitz
From 0:00 to :50 the language, imagery, and sound that is used is not being honest. They are trying to make the view feel like the Supreme courts point of view is threatening compared to the point that the voice over is about to make. I think that kind of presentation is dishonest. I like reasonTV, but I don’t like the dishonest approach to the set up to this video.
Yereviltwin2 1 year ago
@Yereviltwin2
It's just a catchy setup building up to a climax.
.
I understand you may not like that style, but that's all it is, style.
.
Dishonesty on the other hand is not something you "feel", but something that is objective and quantifiable.
schulwitz 1 year ago
@schulwitz
I don’t think ReasonTV needs a catchy deceptive intro with scary overtones. I think the content which drives me to watch is enough; like in the many other videos. As a libertarian I want a rational argument from both points of view without dishonesty so I can choose fairly. Let the rational sell the idea, not fear.
Yereviltwin2 1 year ago
@Yereviltwin2
I understand the sentiment, but Reason isn't using actual scare tactics, they are parodying them.
Not for one second did I actually think Reason was trying to scare me, I knew it was a joke from the beginning. Even if you didn't catch it from the onset, the line "there's even been a camera in Katie Couric" should have tipped you off. I'm pretty sure most people understood that this was a farcical setup.
Different strokes for different folks though I guess.
schulwitz 1 year ago
What 6 dummies could've disliked this
RomanContreras420 1 year ago
What about the federal reserve?
ZarrV2 1 year ago
Kagan and Sotomayor on camera violates the 8th Amendment protection against torture.
phonepimpbill 1 year ago
Lmao, I love how he described the Supreme Court.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
I remember seeing an affirmative action case being heard in a lower federal court about a year ago or 2. It was broadcast on C-SPAN. I don't remember exactly which one, but it was quite interesting. If a lower court can do it, why can't the Supreme Court??
whoo689 1 year ago
Frankly, I think the cameras should be removed from court rooms, they have no business there. If you want to see a proceeding then go down there for yourself.
Leavon 1 year ago
@Leavon That would be nice if that didn't involve me having to take time off from work, a plane ticket, hotel, etc. to be able to do so.
phonepimpbill 1 year ago
Camera's in the Supreme Court is a terrible idea. Camera's in the court room hasn't led to better judgements -- usually worse like O.J. Simpson trial. I know that the merits can be debated, but I really don't see a real good.
EnricCirne 1 year ago
@EnricCirne Perhaps, but it is fairly certain that bad decisions have been made due to lack of accountability. The decisions of US v Miller, Wickard v. Filburn, and US v. Carolene Products were all due to behind the scenes dealing and concealed interests.
phonepimpbill 1 year ago
@phonepimpbill Since the perfect is the enemy of the good, the question probably is which is the higher good. Generalizing to our form of Government, there's good reasons the Founding Fathers chose representative democracy to direct democracy. The influence of the mob and current sentiment working against the greater good as happened in ancient Greek direct democracy. Much of the problems in California can probably be attributed to the direct democracy ballot initiative process & term limits.
EnricCirne 1 year ago
There should be cameras in ALL government offices. Let us see how many people are sleeping at their desks. Let us see all the secret union deals. Let us see and hear all the bullshit from all government. Then maybe the citizens will one day realize that these people really aren't that smart at all, and a free market and the freedom of human behavior is in the best interest of the country.
anarchylogic 1 year ago 3
Nothing of any significant scandal happens as these politicians do their job. Where I want cameras is in the elevators, the water cooler, the cafeteria, the coffee pot. That is where the fate of nations are decided, not out on the floor of congress. What happens on C-SPAN is just the execution, not the actual decision making process. Why should public servants be allowed ANY degree of privacy at all? They are in control of our fucking lives!
DeimosSaturn 1 year ago
finally something I agree with. how is freedom of speech a "conservative" ideal? it's liberal to the core. We want the liberty of seeing what's going on in there.
oldhacks 1 year ago
@oldhacks
Free speech is a classic liberal idea, but not a neo liberal idea. Neo liberals would ban hate speech if given the chance, and neo conservatives would ban scientists from teaching evolution like they try to ban teachers from doing in schools.
FlowCell 1 year ago
@oldhacks it's to do with history: traditionally, conservatives were liberal, or more accurately, libertarian in many of their views. It's only in more recent times that they've become fuck-pigs.
arcanekrusader 1 year ago
@oldhacks Its more "liberal" these days to censor others in the name of political correctness.
takerdust 1 year ago
@takerdust omg. liberals want more and more freedom. conservatives want things to stay the way they are. progressives and traditionalists. thats the divide.
oldhacks 1 year ago
@oldhacks Today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives.
In 100 years, private property might be abolished completely, internet regulated very heavily, and that could all be considered progressive.
takerdust 1 year ago
ReasonTV makes some terrible arguments on this one, but I do support cameras in the supreme court. There is a supreme court show in Canada ("Jurisprudence" on CPAC), and it's much more interesting than the blather that comes from the House of Commons.
sharrynuk 1 year ago
How about cameras at the Fed?
elricmlbone 1 year ago
It is time that we as American citizen-sovereigns start to take command of our government again. Remember that all aspects of the US Governmmnet is legally and figuratevely subordinate to us the citizen. We are the only nation on earth that has this flow of power from God to Citizen to Government.
Quit asking their opinion and command them to enact our wishes as a free and open republic. Assert your power and issue the edicts for them to follow. Take command. Take responsibility and act.
towertek 1 year ago 2
@towertek Good luck. You'll need it.
DasGuntLord01 1 year ago
Let us see what goes on in two week camp that gathers TPTB
MYTHECIES 1 year ago
ReasonTv dropped the ball on this one. I sorta agree on there being cameras, but then again Justices dont wanna be swayed by public opinion. That is why they are not voted in. (Although the people who nominate them are not very good either). This would not be an issue if we had private courts, but thats a different story. ReasonTv should not have attacked strong and good justices opinions and sided with the new ones that have no idea what justice even is.
LibertarianWatch 1 year ago 3
Oral transcripts and audio recordings are available to anyone. I listened to the entire Citizen's United case. This video is overly dramatic and under truthful. The cases are out there to be heard or read yet Nick comes on like a harbinger of evil. And then there are those in the comments section who willingly just goes along with the video and just regurgitates big brother rhetoric. I'm perfectly content being able to listen to cases. Why do we need cameras again?
Thebboss 1 year ago 2
@Thebboss why dont we need cameras, again?!
50calsyndicate 1 year ago
@50calsyndicate Every word uttered in the Supreme court is written down and audio recorded. This video is a lot of hyperbole.
Thebboss 1 year ago
Do we really need grand-standing and a dumbing down of arguments in the Supreme Court, the last bastion of the rule of law in these United States? Its not like it's some secret society, you can read all the oral arguments anywhere on the internet.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
If they don't like the cameras, they can quit. We are the boss, and bosses have the right to film their employees.
(That is just another side of Katie Couric I don't want to see.)
XCritonX 1 year ago 2
@XCritonX Interesting concept...but are we really their bosss or are they ours? They are beholden to no one after all.
dalmatian847 1 year ago
I think that there should be less policing of people with cameras, and more cameras on the people who are employed by us taxpayers. Everything is currently backwards.
josda1000 1 year ago 2
Doesn't the FBI use notepads instead of cameras when interrogating witnesses? Pretty fucked up.
reapfreak 1 year ago
The more cameras the more transparency. All government agencies should be recorded and all footage open to the public. If the government can video tape the citizens to benefit itself, then we should absolutely have the same.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago 4
There should be cameras in every school classroom with parental access to combat the Libanus indoctrination of our children.
funwidude 1 year ago 10
Great show!. Sub right now!
usergently 1 year ago