Justice Kennedy on Cameras in the Court

At a 2007 hearing on judicial security, Justice Kennedy spoke about the use of cameras in the Supreme Court.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/vidLink.php?b=1171514724&e=11715149...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• C-SPAN

[exenrontexas]

@MrkPrbsc I firmly believe that everything, that is EVERYTHING, that the government does except those things which directly affect the troops in the field should be recorded on video. This includes the deliberations of the SCOTUS in chambers. We have and absolute right to know what they are doing and saying in our name. Thank you for providing information about oral arguments and published opinions but I want more. I want there to be no excuse or prevarication about what they meant.

[MrkPrbsc]

@exenrontexas it seems that you are unaware that oral arguments are recorded and published by the court exactly so that you can "know" what the court is doing in your name. Granted, you won't see who is picking their nose, but you will hear it when it happens. It's on the supreme court website under "oral arguments." If you are concerned about the actual published opinions, look no further than the same site (for recent cases) or your local library (local public law school library best bet).

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, CSPAN.

[exenrontexas]

Kennedy is WRONG. Deliberations or not the PEOPLE of America MUST and SHOULD know what the court is doing in their name that affect all their lives. JFK was right. SECRECY is the FRIEND of TYRANNY.

[johnluke1169]

I do not believe the Supreme Court should ever allow cameras in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ability to make impartial decisions and its majesty would be at stake, sound bytes would harm the process.

[smg1one]

The written decisions arent based on the constitution or the law alone theyre based on the arguments presented to the court and what part of the law or constitution the appellant believes applies to their circumstance. Most of those arguments are presented on paper; some are presented in person during the oral argument. One camera isnt going to destroy the system but if it does the system sucks.

[smg1one]

The US is a constitutional republic with democratic traditions; those can easily be set aside when the situation calls for it. Among those democratic traditions (elections, free press, the right to assemble) are public trials. If you dont want the cameras affecting the decisions or the arguments made before the court the solution is appointing mature justices to the court rather than grand standers that just want to see their names in lights.

[FAHayek89]

The court is measured by different standards that the legislative and executive branch. The other two branches are responsible to the will of the people. The court is not. It is responsible to the text of the Constitution, even if its decisions offend the majority of the public. The court is judged not by its deliberation, but by its written decisions. All that matters in the end are the written decisions. Those are easily available for those in the public who care enough to read them.

[FAHayek89]

Asthe news media picks up sound bites, Justices may alter their questions and comments so as to be picked up on the news with a great sound bite. They may shy away from legally important but unpopular comments and questions. We are not and have never been a democracy we are a Constitutional republic -- and the court certainly isn't an elected branch. The Justices are bound to the text of the law, even if it contradicts the immediate popular will of the people. Cameras may undermine that.

[smg1one]

:: achem :: YouTube they'd post it all on YouTube is what I meant to say