FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 02/27/2014 1:31:35 PM PST by LittleSpotBlog
The Supreme Court was subject to a security breach when a spectator sneaked a video camera into Wednesday’s proceedings and filmed a protester who disrupted an oral argument.
The clandestine footage, posted on YouTube, is the first known video footage of a Supreme Court proceeding to be made public. It isn’t clear what type of device was used to make the recording. High court outbursts are rare. Before Wednesday, the last notable disruption of a Supreme Court proceeding came during a 2006 abortion case.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
The SCOTUS proceedings should be televised.
It is somewhat surprising that we cannot even see tape-delayed proceedings on C-Span.
Agreed. The justices benefit from the lack of transparency but the public loses.
The black-robed gods themselves have willed it not to be so, and mere mortal citizens should not question such divine omniscience!
I fail to see what would be discovered.
Someone yawned or someone picked their nose.
Media porn.
I disagree, Rightward Ho.
The inclusion of cameras in Congress, while helpful, has also created an atmosphere where grandstanding takes place all too often.
Fortunately, this is also mitigated by the fact that Congress has multiple hearings and is in session for a long time—at least compared to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court only hears a handful of cases—and so the temptation to grandstand, instead of engaging in measured and intelligent presentation of cases would be exceedingly high. Too high, I think, for the inclusion of cameras to be justified.
Audio is available, I believe, for some cases. And transcripts are there, too, for all cases, if I recall correctly.
Anyway, the Court’s reasoning to keep cameras out makes sense to me.
Well video #2 tells us who made video #1. Thanks!
... and, whatever the outcome, decorum, process, and sanctity of the Court have more value to me than some idiot’s self-assumed “right” to publicly address the Court. Being in the gallery is not being “involved” in the process and - even if he is right - the acts of these organized morons would tend to show that they themselves are not worthy of the respect they claim on demand from others. Grow up. Go to law school. Earn the right to take a case to the Court. Don’t spew your drivel from row 26 while your friends are making the next Jacka$$ video. Respect yourself and others.
The SCOTUS proceedings should be televised.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
More importantly, the Fed meetings should be televised.
Q: Why did that Justice rudely interrupt the lawyer for the appellant/appellee? [wail]
A: Because that's how it works.
Q: But he showed no respect! [whine]
A: He (or she) doesn't have to.
Crooked lawyers with black robes get owned.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
That’s funny. Is that from a movie?
I second that motion.
What he said is not pro-individual freedom but pro-government. Money IS a form of free speech (contributing to someone who is speaking for you like a candidate as your representative) and businesses ARE nothing more than a group of people engaged in enterprise (people who have the God-given right of their pursuits without government interference).
You make some good points. Balance between government transparency and peace and order in their valid and constitutional proceedings.
Correct. Obama, like FDR, is politicizing the SCOTUS. It will get worse the closer to the fall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.