Elena Kagan on TV Cameras in the Supreme Court

Solicitor General Elena Kagan responds to a question from Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) about having television cameras in the Supreme Court. In her response she says, "I think it would be a terrific thing...I think it would be a great thing for the institution, and more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people." (from C-SPAN 6/29/10 coverage)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Cameras
• in
• Court
• Youtube
• clip
• Clip

[amaghrebi1]

@GISMCONFUSE disclosure and the search for the truth is always in the end the best policy to pursue !

[amaghrebi1]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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

[19cc88]

@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...

[amaghrebi1]

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

[skinnym974]

@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 ...

[kagansnutsack]

she will have the biggest balls in court

[TyVulpine]

@skinnym974 Why not? It forces the Court to stop hiding and be open to the public to watch.