Justice Sotomayor Doesn't Want Cameras In The Supreme Court Because Americans Won't Understand
from the citizen-mushroom,-reporting-for-inactive-non-duty dept
This adminstration is having a hard time reaching its goal of being the "transparentest place on earth," what with its executive orders, state secrets and a whole lot of "as you were" in reference (deference?) to existing Bush-era policies. To make matters worse, Obama's appointees are proving themselves to be "team players" and blocking out much of the remaining sunlight.Justice Sotomayor is pitching in with the "new transparency" (now available in black, charcoal and midnight slate!), reversing field on her previously stated opinions on cameras in the courtroom.
At her confirmation hearings in 2009, she said she was in favor of letting citizens see their government at work. “I have had positive experiences with cameras,” she said. “When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered.”Apparently, much like the rest of the administration, transparency is a great talking point in theory. In practice, however, it's a very different story.
She was singing a different tune a couple of weeks ago, telling Charlie Rose that most Americans would not understand what goes on at Supreme Court arguments and that there was little point in letting them try.Now, while Sotomayor may be correct that many Americans don't understand the nuances of the Supreme Court, it's rather insulting to believe this ignorance should preclude them from observing the inner workings. After all, many Americans are ignorant of ins and outs of the entire political process, and yet, no one's suggesting (at least not legislatively) that they have their right to vote revoked. Not only that, but C-SPAN offers wall-to-wall coverage of the legislative process, something few people in their right minds would claim to understand in its entirety, but no one seems concerned that viewers drawing the wrong conclusions will somehow harm that process.
“I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing,” she said. “They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.”
In fact, she doesn't really make an argument as to why cameras shouldn't be allowed into the courtroom. All she does is claim that the proceedings would fly over the heads of viewers. If she's concerned some of the real-time "devil's advocating" will be misconstrued, her fears are misplaced, to say the least. The public can misconstrue the intentions of the justices without a live feed, thank you very much.
And, if it's the public's understanding of the process she's worried about, wouldn't it make more sense to make the process easily accessed? It's pretty hard to increase knowledge without observation. It seems counterintuitive to dismiss the public as ignorant and think you're going to improve this by locking them out.
Unfortunately, it's not just Sotomayor making a 180 when actually faced with making a theoretical situation a reality. Justice Elena Kagan has also reversed her stance.
At her confirmation hearings in 2010, she said video coverage “would be a great thing for the institution, and more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people.” Two years later, she said she now had “a few worries, including that people might play to the camera” and that the coverage could be misused.Once again, we have fake fears covering for the government's natural tendency to do its "best" work behind closed doors. C-SPAN has seen its share of "playing to the camera," and yet, the American public is still better off having access to this coverage. And, if Kagan's worried the courtroom coverage might be "misused," she's apparently unaware that anything can be misused, whether it's press releases, public statements, speaking engagements, interviews, C-SPAN footage, etc. Worrying about potential "misuse" is an incredibly weak argument for opacity. Of course it will be misused. But it will also be beneficial to the general public. An open feed shows the whole story, which can then be used to punch holes in the arguments of those who misuse the information.
Oddly enough, the home of free speech and democracy is lagging behind countries like Canada and the UK in terms of cameras in these nations' highest courts.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which was formed in 2009, allows camera coverage. Last month, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, the head of the judiciary for England and Wales, announced that cameras would be allowed in appeal courts starting in October, after judges receive media training.So, we've heard the excuses (they're not actually "reasons") presented for keeping cameras out of the Supreme Court, but what's the real reason behind this resistance to cameras in the courthouse? According to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the problem may be with the justices themselves.
Lord Judge agreed with Justice Sotomayor, to a point. “I suspect John and Jane Citizen will find it incredibly dull,” he told a committee of the House of Lords. But that did not seem to him a reason to prevent them from trying to make sense of the proceedings.
Arguments in the Supreme Court of Canada have been broadcast since the mid-1990s, and more recently they have been streamed live on the Internet.
Owen M. Rees, the court’s executive legal officer, said the experience had been positive.
“The filming of the Supreme Court of Canada’s hearings has increased the public’s access to the court and its understanding of the court’s work,” he said. “Of course, each court must make its own evaluation of whether introducing cameras in the courtroom would be appropriate.”
Chief Justice Roberts said he worried about the effect that cameras would have on lawyers and, perhaps more important, on the justices, who may have less self-control than their counterparts abroad.If true, then the American public is being cut out of the process in order to save the justices from themselves. This is completely backwards, to say the least. If cameras provoke this sort of response from the highest court in the land, then something needs to be fixed within the court itself. Trying to place the blame on the public for a perceived lack of comprehension or tendency to misuse information is wholly disingenuous. Our Supreme Court can, and should, follow the lead of Canada and the UK and stop treating US citizens as though they have no (comprehensible) horse in this race.
“We unfortunately fall into grandstanding with a couple of hundred people in the room,” the chief justice said.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: public, sonia sotomayor, supreme court, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Vanity fail
So the judges are afraid that with cameras present they will fail to live up to the high judicial standards set by Judge Judy et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vanity fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vanity fail
The US system of government appointed judges can get/is getting hijacked as opposed to Canada and UK. Increasing the judges exposure will likely make them that much more political in their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vanity fail
We already have that with Groklaw, at least for places where law and technology intersect--which also happens to be where the law tends to be the most clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: "Playing to the camera"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: "Playing to the camera"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Constitution
Supereme... LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to see a lawyer use that argument in the Supreme Court and see how they react to it.
"I'm sorry, Justice Sotomayor, you won't understand the complexity of our reasoning why corporations are people, so I'm not going to explain it to you. You should just rule in our favor because we told you it was too complicated for you to understand..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Observation = Understanding.
Non-observation = Non-understanding.
Now, Sotomayor, read them three times each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remember Fox Mulder's saying - 'Trust No One'! truer words spoken in fun, guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is bad?
The excuse is that people were sending information to other people about testimonies and identifying witnesses.
It's also about the biggest load of BS ever.
Illinois: the model for Big Brother on the west side of the pond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We serve the government, they no longer serve us
Thomas Jefferson said it best: "It has been said that men cannot govern themselves, so can they then govern others?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree!
Americans would understand what a group of incompetant hate bastards the SCOTUS is,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theory versus Practice
Well, in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theory versus Practice
Theorists know how something should work and dont understand why it doesnt.
Practitioners have no clue what they are doing but understands how to get things working!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Similar arguments from another time.
Mankind hasn't changed, those with power want to keep it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what bans cameras in the first place?
so, bring a camera.
if the court tries to remove the camera, claim first amendment reporters rights.
if they still ban the camera, well, there's a lawsuit right there.
which wil likely end up in the supreme court, and wuld either allow cameras from then on, or have to give an actual reason why it would be illegal to have a camera in a public setting, doing the publics business.
if there are any reporters present in the first place, who is to say what medium they can or can not use for their reporting?
stick to the law, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what bans cameras in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what bans cameras in the first place?
"Rule 53. Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting Prohibited
Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom." -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_53
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hiding their crowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's right, and that's why everybody shouldn't get a vote either.
But they do, so deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give it time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor Doesn't Want Cameras In The Supreme Court Because Americans WILL Understand.
Yea we will understand just how f'ed up the system is and demand you all step down. Gotcha there Sotomayor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Groklaw says hi
www.groklaw.net
That argument has been invalid for nearly 10 years, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We appreciate perfectly well what you're doing: selling your verdicts to the highest bidder.
No? Then why so afraid of scrutiny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same old argument
So if we can't understand, how can we possibly obey? And why should we have to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Americans have such a simple technological solution
You'll become the police state that much quicker, then the second American Revolution of Independence can start and you can then have your new Constitution, Bill of Rights, stc. Then in another 200 years or so repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
far left judges
need to be replsced with judes thast beleave in the Constatution of the United States and they also need to beleave in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: far left judges
And if you believe the current Justices are somehow Obama's fault and not a problem affecting all layers of Bureaucracy dealing with Ego's within the US you're more a blithering idiot than your apparent lack of education suggests.
Somewhere there actually is a Village that DOESN'T miss you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bias Media...
By NOT having a camera while Supreme Court is in session, it protects the rights of those accused who are innocent until proven guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bias Media...
No, it does not. The defendant isn't going to be there anyway, unless by some miracle the Supreme Court is hearing a case where the person is representing himself. If it's a criminal case, the person has very likely already been found guilty and there has already been a TON of media coverage, anyway. Beyond that, the Constitution protects the right to a PUBLIC trial, not a private one.
"Given the behavior of FoxNews and MSNBC on how much they speculate rather than fact check. I really don't blame Jystice Sotomayor for wanting that rule in place."
They're going to speculate whether the cameras are there or not. This just means they get a sound bite instead of a transcript.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bias Media...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, if this is going to cause them to lose focus, even if they SHOULD be able to handle it and the lack is a personal failing of the judges, it's not worth it. What they do is too important. And it's not like there's any REAL lack of transparency. Theirs is about the ONLY government agency that gives a well thought out, detailed, and un-redacted reason for every decision they make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there anything we can do about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want the bradley manning case on camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylnyz5NgiCA
The judge rapporteur, Mr. Joaquim Barbosa, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaquim_Barbosa), who has since become the Chief Justice, has become more or less a national hero, and there is the common meme of comparing him to Batman (Because of an iconic picture taken during the case).
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ze0rRAI4PoQ/UJFfphJaRkI/AAAAAAAAC8g/M8lBocyGTHY/s1600/JOAQUIM-BA TMAN-BARBOSA-001.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9ooh4_Iviww8PWNnl5OvQgYc_k_ST8jA3w 1DLcMpbB5XNLlvZ
http://www.brasil247.com/images/cache/490x280/crop/images%7Ccms-image-000288691.j pg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]