Justice Breyer on Cameras in the Court

Justice Stephen Breyer responded to a question about televising oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• C-SPAN
• court
• camera

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, CSPAN.

[JeffreyJayFisher]

JesusChristForeverAmen blogspot

[esgatch]

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democrat I know of who did not betray his oath to the people. The rest of 'em are worthless.

'We the people' overwhelmingly opposed both the Bush abd Obama bailouts, but Congress ignored us and passed them anyway.

That's not ignorance. That's fact.

[TheNewVideo]

All Democrats are selling out the very citizens that voted for them. Some see it, some do not. The ones that do not are totally ignorant to any truths.

[esgatch]

The entire US Congress is corrupt. In March 2008 they held a closed-door session. Every attending member was compelled by law not to disclose the subject matter to the American people.

Three Congressmen refused to attend that session. Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Dennis Kucinich. The rest of them SOLD US OUT. Every one of them!

Wake up, America!

[TheNewVideo]

I think it all should be on display for the whole world to see how corrupt these Democrats are and how they use their language against the American people.

[esgatch]

Cameras in the court would be an opportunity for public discretion on the issues, but that wouldn't last. The jurists would 'play to the audience' like the house of rep's does.

Breyer may suggest different rationales, but, simply put, the Supreme Court doesn't want the publicity.

Technology wasn't a consideration in the 18th century, but now it is. The Court likes to maintain 'legal decorum', but they can't hide behind it, or use new tehnology as an excuse to change original intent.

[makeyanoticeme]

I'd say the good outweighs the bad by a long shot. Yes justice DOES move slow, democracy demands that. But it also demands right to freedom of speech so we can have all of the arguments put forth. So the best for all of us can come from that slowly. But we can't talk about it if we don't have access to it and we should be talking about it. Justice should move slowly but it shouldn't be at a relative stand-still.

[MadMako]

I agree about the transparency, if based only on the precedent set by the other branches. I think the negative argument Breyer mentions about personalizing cases can actually be a great strength, because it will help engage the public in these issues. True, many will have a dumbed-down understanding and prejudge based on individual parties, but ultimately the educational value -- or the mere opportunity to educate -- outweighs that, I think. Perhaps, that is why he references education first.

[imaginepeace63]

I trhink that would be a good idea. There are cameras in the house and the senate. Why not the supreme court?