Should the SCOTUS allow live video broadcasts of their proceedings?

[Minerva]

An article in support of live video
An article opposed to live video


I am in support of cameras being allowed to live stream the proceedings of the SCOTUS.

I have long believed that the SCOTUS should be televised and this belief was only reinforced after hours of watching the voting process for the Speaker of the House. I was also active in the thread on this forum while the vote was being conducted and learned from other members more knowledgeable than myself about some of the machinations of this process and of the House Rules.

I watched it on CSPAN where I was able to see the Reps mingle and react, at one point I thought we would witness a physical confrontation between Gaetz and McCarthy. I was able to see Roberts Rule of Order applied successfully in the herding of cats.

I walked away from this with a better understanding of our government and the sausage grinder nature of its being.

I think having the same access to the SCOTUS would allow a similar experience in this regard. True, they do release audiotapes of the proceedings but the first article I linked to explains the shortcomings of the process used with audio.

So, what say you?

 

[Gatsby]

I worry that cameras would encourage more theatrics, from both the lawyers and the justices. We really need a branch of government devoid of all that stuff IMO.

 

[ASHES]

Yes. Watched a hearing on zoom the other day from the Kansas Supreme Court, no reason it wouldn't work for the US Supreme Court.

 

[Captain Adverse]

An article in support of live video
An article opposed to live video


I am in support of cameras being allowed to live stream the proceedings of the SCOTUS.

I have long believed that the SCOTUS should be televised and this belief was only reinforced after hours of watching the voting process for the Speaker of the House. I was also active in the thread on this forum while the vote was being conducted and learned from other members more knowledgeable than myself about some of the machinations of this process and of the House Rules.

I watched it on CSPAN where I was able to see the Reps mingle and react, at one point I thought we would witness a physical confrontation between Gaetz and McCarthy. I was able to see Roberts Rule of Order applied successfully in the herding of cats.

I walked away from this with a better understanding of our government and the sausage grinder nature of its being.

I think having the same access to the SCOTUS would allow a similar experience in this regard. True, they do release audiotapes of the proceedings but the first article I linked to explains the shortcomings of the process used with audio.

So, what say you?

I say no.

Courtrooms are not "spectacles," although some people want to make them so.

Tha last thing I would want to see is lawyers and judges seeking the limelight rather than simply arguing the law.

Our nation is becoming more and more jaded like ancient Rome with everyone wanting to be entertained via spectacles as in the Colosseum or Hippodrome. All that means is we are becoming as decadent and corrupt as they were...just before the Fall.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, absolutely. It's the Supreme Court, not the women's rest room or a confession booth.

 

[jaypatriot]

I watched it on CSPAN where I was able to see the Reps mingle and react, at one point I thought we would witness a physical confrontation between Gaetz and McCarthy. I was able to see Roberts Rule of Order applied successfully in the herding of cats.

Minny
Are you that interested in physical confrontations in politics to where that is why you want to see cameras on SCOTUS members doing their jobs?
That is equivalent to watching paint dry.
Watch more NFL football if physical confrontation on live TV turns you on.

 

[The flaming lib]

Though question. And one of the best questions I’ve seen under this “polls” section. Thanks to the OP for posting it.
on one hand I want govco/court/elected and unelected officials to be open and upfront and transparent as possible. But I do see the real possibility of cameras giving those involved an audience and that will mean playing to the cameras and we all know people will eat that shit up. So my thought is

 

[bongsaway]

I say no.

Courtrooms are not "spectacles," although some people want to make them so.

Tha last thing I would want to see is lawyers and judges seeking the limelight rather than simply arguing the law.

Our nation is becoming more and more jaded like ancient Rome with everyone wanting to be entertained via spectacles as in the Colosseum or Hippodrome. All that means is we are becoming as decadent and corrupt as they were...just before the Fall.

Like the spectacle of the republicans in picking their speaker that we all just watched? I'm not sure grandstanding would work in front of the supreme court. If that's all you have in mind, you will be slapped down quickly. This isn't about entertainment as far as I'm concerned, it's about transparency. The supreme court justices in my eyes are no better than anyone else and the more they stay secluded from the public, the more shit they can pass or kill without we the people knowing until it's over.

 

[sub1028]

yes, unless there is sensitive information

 

[Gatsby]

Like the spectacle of the republicans in picking their speaker that we all just watched?

Yes. Why would we want to turn the SCOTUS into that?

I'm not sure grandstanding would work in front of the supreme court.

It's not just grandstanding from the lawyers that would be a problem. It's also grandstanding from the justices themselves.

If that's all you have in mind, you will be slapped down quickly. This isn't about entertainment as far as I'm concerned, it's about transparency.

Why is maximal transparency a desirable goal? We already have the official transcript and audio.

The supreme court justices in my eyes are no better than anyone else and the more they stay secluded from the public, the more shit they can pass or kill without we the people knowing until it's over.

Good, the entire point of an independent judiciary is to be able to rule on cases free from political influence.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

An article in support of live video
An article opposed to live video


I am in support of cameras being allowed to live stream the proceedings of the SCOTUS.

I have long believed that the SCOTUS should be televised and this belief was only reinforced after hours of watching the voting process for the Speaker of the House. I was also active in the thread on this forum while the vote was being conducted and learned from other members more knowledgeable than myself about some of the machinations of this process and of the House Rules.

I watched it on CSPAN where I was able to see the Reps mingle and react, at one point I thought we would witness a physical confrontation between Gaetz and McCarthy. I was able to see Roberts Rule of Order applied successfully in the herding of cats.

I walked away from this with a better understanding of our government and the sausage grinder nature of its being.

I think having the same access to the SCOTUS would allow a similar experience in this regard. True, they do release audiotapes of the proceedings but the first article I linked to explains the shortcomings of the process used with audio.

So, what say you?

They should allow anything that might actually help keep them honest, as that seems to be a pretty serious problem at the moment.

 

[Minerva]

Oddly I cannot find the poll that should be linked to this topic.
I allowed three answers...Yes/No/Undecided.

Did I fill something out incorrectly?

 

[j brown's body]

An article in support of live video
An article opposed to live video


I am in support of cameras being allowed to live stream the proceedings of the SCOTUS.

I have long believed that the SCOTUS should be televised and this belief was only reinforced after hours of watching the voting process for the Speaker of the House. I was also active in the thread on this forum while the vote was being conducted and learned from other members more knowledgeable than myself about some of the machinations of this process and of the House Rules.

I watched it on CSPAN where I was able to see the Reps mingle and react, at one point I thought we would witness a physical confrontation between Gaetz and McCarthy. I was able to see Roberts Rule of Order applied successfully in the herding of cats.

I walked away from this with a better understanding of our government and the sausage grinder nature of its being.

I think having the same access to the SCOTUS would allow a similar experience in this regard. True, they do release audiotapes of the proceedings but the first article I linked to explains the shortcomings of the process used with audio.

So, what say you?

Absolutely.

 

[Minerva]

yes, unless there is sensitive information

I had thought about making that a vote option (and I cannot see the poll page I filled out for this topic) that would allow the SCOTUS to go off cameras if so required.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I am in support of cameras being allowed to live stream the proceedings of the SCOTUS.

So, what say you?

We have very little evidence this will accomplish what you think it will without some sort of consequence, and it is for the same reason everyone else makes a similar mistake. The asinine assumption you can change one thing and have so much control, or the arrogance made by the illusion of control, that everything else would stay the same.

If you force broadcasts of Supreme Court proceedings, including debates they have away from hearing arguments, it is logical to assume everyone from the Supreme Court justices themselves down to those making arguments and those in support will behave differently. There is even a difference between audio broadcasts and video broadcasts.

You can assume, or come back with "they should" arguments, all you would like but we have enough evidence to date that putting anyone in front of a camera for any reason changes behavior.

Some good changes, some not so good, but it is factual to say it and again, you would not be able to dictate what that reaction would be. Even if you claim you like all the changes then all of sudden act surprised when there is unintended consequence.

 

[Minerva]

Minny
Are you that interested in physical confrontations in politics to where that is why you want to see cameras on SCOTUS members doing their jobs?

No, the Gaetz/McCarthy moment was not even on my list of reasons I watched the proceedings. It was just a moment that stuck out.
The other things I noticed were members being reminded repeatedly to address the Clerk and not the members. There was showboating by some, one situation was where during her nomination of KM, the Rep took open potshots across the aisle, accusing them of bringing popcorn, blankets and drinking alcoholic beverages. Which honestly a tub of popcorn and a cold brew would have been fine.

 

[Minerva]

As to the issue of the spectacle we just witnessed, I doubt it would have been different if the proceedings had not been televised. Votes tallys would have remained the same.

 

[Minerva]

Though question. And one of the best questions I’ve seen under this “polls” section. Thanks to the OP for posting it.
on one hand I want govco/court/elected and unelected officials to be open and upfront and transparent as possible. But I do see the real possibility of cameras giving those involved an audience and that will mean playing to the cameras and we all know people will eat that shit up. So my thought is

Thank you and you're welcome.

 

[jaypatriot]

No, the Gaetz/McCarthy moment was not even on my list of reasons I watched the proceedings. It was just a moment that stuck out.
The other things I noticed were members being reminded repeatedly to address the Clerk and not the members. There was showboating by some, one situation was where during her nomination of KM, the Rep took open potshots across the aisle, accusing them of bringing popcorn, blankets and drinking alcoholic beverages. Which honestly a tub of popcorn and a cold brew would have been fine.

Don't get me wrong. I am disgusted with the theatrics of the GOP holdouts.
It is shameful and it is grandstanding by those needing attention.
It makes the Democrats look like model citizens.

 

[jaypatriot]

No, the Gaetz/McCarthy moment was not even on my list of reasons I watched the proceedings. It was just a moment that stuck out.
The other things I noticed were members being reminded repeatedly to address the Clerk and not the members. There was showboating by some, one situation was where during her nomination of KM, the Rep took open potshots across the aisle, accusing them of bringing popcorn, blankets and drinking alcoholic beverages. Which honestly a tub of popcorn and a cold brew would have been fine.

Don't get me wrong. I am disgusted with the theatrics of the GOP holdouts.
It is shameful and it is grandstanding by those needing attention.
It makes the Democrats look like model citizens.

Like the spectacle of the republicans in picking their speaker that we all just watched? I'm not sure grandstanding would work in front of the supreme court. If that's all you have in mind, you will be slapped down quickly. This isn't about entertainment as far as I'm concerned, it's about transparency. The supreme court justices in my eyes are no better than anyone else and the more they stay secluded from the public, the more shit they can pass or kill without we the people knowing until it's over.

How about a C-Span episode where they broadcast either grass growing or paint drying? Wouldn't that be just as exciting?
Maybe someone will hurl a racial epithet at Justice Thomas and the news networks will have a field day, or week, chewing on that story.

 

[Roadvirus]

I say Yes.

It could help possibly sand off some of the rough edges regarding some current opinions of SCOTUS & have an educational benefit from a prespective of those interested in the law and the proceedings in general.

 

[Roadvirus]

Maybe someone will hurl a racial epithet at Justice Thomas and the news networks will have a field day, or week, chewing on that story.

No need for that. MSNBC already has race-baiting hacks who have that covered.

 

[Lisa]

Yes, there should be CSPAN coverage of SCOTUS proceedings. I want to see their religious bigotry, constitutional sophism, and political corruption on live HD video.

 

[Helix]

Oddly I cannot find the poll that should be linked to this topic.
I allowed three answers...Yes/No/Undecided.

Did I fill something out incorrectly?

I added the poll.

 

[Minerva]

I added the poll.

Thank you.