|
Volume 106
An Online Symposium on Televising the Supreme Court |
Senator Arlen Specter introduced S. 344, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings, on January 28, 2007. If enacted, the legislation will require the Supreme Court to televise its proceedings unless a majority of the Justices decide, on a case-by-case basis, that televising would violate the parties’ due process rights. An identical bill is pending in the U.S. House of Representatives. A diverse panel of authors explores the implications of the prospective legislation and considers potential costs and benefits of televising the Court’s proceedings. |
Gee Whiz, the Sky Is Falling! [HTML] [PDF]
The Honorable Boyce F. Martin, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
I am reminded of Chicken Little’s famous mantra as I listen to some Supreme Court Justices’ reactions to the prospect of televising oral arguments. Their fears—such as Justice Kennedy’s warning that allowing cameras in the courtroom may change the Court’s dynamics—are, in my opinion, overblown. . . . I can make this guarantee—televising the Supreme Court’s oral arguments will not produce the disastrous results predicted by some frightened Justices; rather, it will yield positive results. Most notably, it will increase the public’s knowledge of the appellate process.  |
Televising the Court: A Category Mistake [HTML] [PDF]
Christina B. Whitman, University of Michigan Law School
The idea of televising Supreme Court oral arguments is undeniably appealing. . . . There is an understandable hunger for anything that will help us understand these nine individuals who have so much power—who can even choose a President, or at least hasten his anointment. . . . Whatever the Justices’ motives, televising the Court’s arguments is a terrible idea. It is both misleading and unnecessary. Misleading because it would only randomly tell us something useful about the Court, and unnecessary because the Court is already more open than the other branches. |
The Right Legislation for the Wrong Reasons [HTML] [PDF]
Tony Mauro
Senator Arlen Specter took a bold and long-overdue step on January 22, 2007, when he introduced legislation that would require the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of its proceedings. But instead of making his case with a straightforward appeal to the public’s right to know, Specter has introduced arguments in favor of his bill that seem destined to antagonize the Court, drive it into the shadows, or both. Chances of passage might improve if Specter adjusts his tactics. |
C-SPAN's Long and Winding Road to a
Still Un-televised Supreme Court [HTML] [PDF]
Bruce D. Collins, C-SPAN
In 2005 when Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) first proposed legislation requiring the Supreme Court of the United States to televise its oral arguments, he resuscitated a twenty-plus-years long effort by several news organizations to achieve the same goal. For at least that long, C‑SPAN has been ready to provide the same kind of video coverage of the federal judiciary as it has been providing of the Congress and the president. If cameras are ever permitted in the high Court’s chamber, C‑SPAN will televise every minute of every oral argument, frequently on a live basis, and will do so in its trademark format of no interruptions or commentary. |
Will It Make My Job Easier, or What's in It for Me? [HTML] [PDF]
Kenneth N. Flaxman, Law Offices of Kenneth N. Flaxman, P.C.
Putting aside philosophical questions about public access to government proceedings—what we now call “transparency”—and without regard to whether televising Supreme Court arguments is a logical extension of the common law’s “absolute personal right of reasonable access to court files” . . ., my real concern about whether Supreme Court arguments should be televised is somewhat narcissistic. Will it make my job—as a plaintiff’s civil rights lawyer who dabbles in criminal defense and post-conviction matters and who has had five adventures as “arguing counsel” in the Supreme Court—easier? I explain below why I think the answer is a resounding “yes.” |
Constitutional Etiquette and the Fate of "Supreme Court TV" [HTML] [PDF]
Bruce Peabody, Fairleigh Dickinson University
[D]ebate about whether the Supreme Court should be required to televise its public proceedings is becoming more audible and focused. . . . But almost entirely ignored . . . is an issue that may effectively determine the fate of S. 344: Will this initiative unsettle supposedly time-honored relations of respect and civility between the judiciary and Congress—a pattern of institutional courtesy we might label “constitutional etiquette”? . . . The following discussion briefly defines constitutional etiquette, assesses whether Congress would breach that etiquette by enacting the legislation proposed by Senator Specter, and concludes by examining the significance—for the Specter bill and for our public affairs generally—of our branches’ mutual expectations of respect and deference. |
Granting Certiorari to Video Recording but Not to Televising [HTML] [PDF]
Scott C. Wilcox, University of Michigan Law School
The Justices’ public statements suggest that their objections are to televising—not to cameras—and welcoming cameras to video record Court proceedings for archival purposes will serve the Justices’ interests well. Video recording can forestall legislation recently introduced in both houses of Congress that would require the Court to televise its proceedings. The legislation is more likely to disappear from the congressional agenda once the Justices have acknowledged legislators’ legitimate arguments for improving access to the Court. And when initiating video recording, the Justices can allay the concerns they have expressed about televising by strictly limiting the distribution of the archival footage. |
|
|
