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

[skinnym974]

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.