Justices Scalia & Breyer on Cameras in the Court
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 10. 2011
- During a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Role of Judges Under the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer comment on Cameras in the Court. Their comments came in response to a question from Senator Blumenthal (D-CT). See the complete hearing, from C-SPAN coverage, here: www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Ro...
Television would politicize the Supreme Court.
It's a good thing the court isn't politicized now *phew*
@@Seas_Of_Neptune Funny quip, but I think Gregory implied it would make the court *more* politicized. That's my reasonable interpretation. Not only that, but the politicization is largely held in the nomination process (by the legislature, president, interest groups, etc etc). The actual court proceedings themselves are nothing like the hyper emotional roller coaster rides we see in congress or the presidency. The media still has an interest in sensationalizing what it can for content, which isn't inherently bad - we need a scrupulous media. But, a justice is not held to nearly the same whims of out-of-context news blurbs that politicians in the other branches face - on both sides.
Trust me man, that ship has sailed
@@johndanielson3777 yup..
@trufiend138 not really plenty of statements will be taken out of context including justices playing devils advocate
Imagine: a Supreme Court biopic where Danny Devito plays Justice Antonin Scalia
Hell yes
I was thinking Paul Giamatti.
Please lmao
Maybe Jason Alexander?
Scalia is absolutely right. If televising the proceedings would indeed inform the public and give them a better sense of how the Court works and functions then it would be a good idea -- at least to consider. But as Breyer said, oral arguments are only three to five percent of the case, yet that is what people would fixate on. When you add that in with the fact that the news media would take clips out of context and misreport, it seems fairly straightforward that televising the Supreme Court (as much as I would love to see it!) would be a terrible idea.
It's really not a big deal. Canada's Supreme Court has been televising proceedings for 20+ years and NOBODY takes sound bites out of it. Nor does anybody even care, even when they make a controversial decision.
kenektik I guess American culture is different from Canadian culture then.
This was an EXTREMELY controversial case in Canada, which dealt with whether a law school could force people to sign a religious pledge. czcams.com/video/DklkRRPlmG4/video.html
This is probably the best example I could find of somebody extracting an excerpt from Supreme Court hearing, and it's still incredibly boring. At best it's highly educational, and it's difficult to reason how a propagandist could extract much from it.
How often do you see people construct gotcha clips from CSPAN hearings? Not often. The format is too boring for the general public.
kenektik Since you used the word ‘boring’, people won’t watch it and the media can misinterpret of what the courtroom proceeding was about. Propaganda, in other words. What is even worse is the public has smaller attention span than a goldfish. So, why should we trust the public to view them?
You don't watch American Liberal Media. They twist everything and Lie!
I could already imagine the sound bites and video clips that would be taken out of context and broadcast over the major news networks to push certain narratives or drive the news cycle. I agree it’s best to keep the cameras out at this time. The arguments can be better examined by the public in writing or via the audio tapes. Otherwise, we could end up with judges who are more concerned about their public image than about applying the law.
Three people in government, one with a very different opinion on an important subject having a friendly, open, and respectful conversation. Wow.
While I'm not against cameras in the courtroom, I think it's telling that the Democratic Senator equates visual medium with higher transparency. I lean with the justices on this. Law is a verbal art. At a time when the country is more literate than ever, oral arguments are both written in transcripts and recorded in audio files. I don't see how visualizing that process increases an already exceptional level of transparency - something the Senate does not do as well (and is televised). The call for transparency is a red herring here.
Mike Williams well said, and I think the justices agree with you here as well, the looks on their faces give it away. Perhaps in this case the video revealed something they wouldn’t have verbally, the irony!
100%. And not only the actual tapes, like Scalia said, but the briefs. You can read the briefs submitted by the parties and the decisions issued by the Court. Anyone who is really interested in what is going on has access to all that they can read, and that provides way more information than oral arguments do. It is all public information. If the court was a completely closed, mysterious organization then yeah, I'd think some transparency would be warranted... But it isn't. There is a lot of transparency. You can find out exactly what is going on, they just forbid video cameras and it is completely reasonable.
@Mi87: I agree 100%. Breyer and Scalia definitely look incredibly relaxed because in my opinion they aren't subject to the political posturing as displayed by Senator Blumenthal that is brought out at these kinds of hearings. Body language speaks volumes, and based on that, Breyer and Scalia won the day at this hearing because they're unelectable, therefore they're untouchable no matter what they say at a hearing like this.
Scalia is right. Here in Brazil the entire Supreme Court proceedings are televised, and the damage is immense, specially after the Supreme Court took the center stage in our most recent political turmoils. The Judges became narcissistic superstars, and the whole proceedings are often misinterpreted by the public and the media. Televising it just made it become a circus and bring unnecessary attention, to the point many people are in favor of "shutting down the Supreme Court", wich is an absurd concept in itself.
Justice Breyer is extremely wise
"We wear black robes because we are speaking FOR THE LAW, NOT for ourselves as individuals."
-US Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (seated on the left)
That quote from Justice Breyer simply yet brilliantly articulates WHY the US Supreme Court WAS, IS, AND WILL BE the independent judiciary, NEVER subject to the dangerous influences of politics and public opinion, dangerous influences that have corrupted Congress countless times.
yes but unfortunately many judges do speak for themselves and not the law. As per the living constitution philosophy, where what ought to happen (from the judges perspective) prevails over the law and constitution.
@@BLUEGENE13 Humans are not perfect, we make mistakes, but we aim not to and with enough education and experience we tend to make less of those.
@@americaneceptionalism8063 indeed, but there is an actual philosophy called "the living constitution" that says "well the constitution has to grow to meet the times"(among other things) and that doesn't mean add an amendment, it means that when a case like about homosexual marriage comes to the supreme court, that they should act as activists instead of representing the actual law and constitution, and just decide for themselves what the people want. Instead of letting the democratic process happen as it should, and let the senate and congress pass an amendment.
@@BLUEGENE13 I would suggest not breaking any law in the first place, but if it does come to that , special considerations should be taken into account when they're really deemed necessary. Remember that if you start throwing special considerations for one subgroup, the others would be at a disadvantage. The law must remain the same for everyone.
Congress is supposed to be a creature of public opinion, They represent the population but the judiciary is supposed to represent the law.
doesn’t matter if you agree with him or not, Scalia can argue just about anything and convince people to take his side. Absolute legend of the law.
Basically, news would cut 30 second clips of it and use it to manipulate it to their advantage
Look how wise Antonin was. His words rung so true in a completely different climate like we have today in 2020. His words are even more true now than there were back then
Not only that he’s very passionate to the law
Scalia's question about the Senate proceedings being improved by being televised was spot on, if rather undiplomatic. He might as well have said "this place has turned into an undignified mess of preening, self-congratulatory performers of little substance or effect. You think we're going to allow that to happen to the Court? LOL."
If you want entertaining "law', watch Judge Judy. If you want to learn about oral argument in the Supreme Court, you can listen to them now.
Consider the Confirmation Hearings themselves. Anyone believe having cameras THERE has improved things? I watch it and am conscious of the fact that the Senators are speaking to "their base" or against their opposite party's Senators. More than anything, it was a bunch of speech making and posturing. The LEAST amount of time appeared to be spent on asking GENUINE questions as to the qualifications of the nominee.
Just look at the Kavanaugh "hearings" to see some idea of the worst that televising can bring. Anyone seriously believe that hearing would have gone that way WITHOUT live footage regardless of when it was broadcast?
You want the SLIGHTEST part of those sorts of things seeping into the Supreme Court, the one branch of government that has generally enjoyed a good reputation with the public? TV circus antics are eroding even that.
I think they'd be crazy to televise their proceedings without at least some sort of valid evidence as to the effects doing so has had in other jurisdictions, as Breyer said.
I agree with these guys. 99% of the public doesn't understand how the supreme court works and that's mostly a fault of the press. The narrative that a conservative judge will "take away" your rights and a liberal judge will "give you more rights" is false. As these justices say (one liberal, one conservative) their job is to interpret the law, not express their views as individuals. Unlike Congressmen, justices will frequently rule against their party/political leanings. I had so much more respect for the judicial branch of government after taking a law class in college.
Scalia was correct here that most people wouldn’t understand at all. Also the press does a really bad job covering the Supreme Court Fox News for example says conservative justices want to persevere America and the liberal justices want to destroy the constitution. While CNN says conservatives want to take away all of your rights while saying the liberal judges want to protect and expand your rights. I was against roe v wade being overturned due to the implied right of privacy. But most people honestly think Roe v wade meant completely unrestricted abortion which isn’t true. Roe v Wade meant that you had a constitutionally protected right to an abortion up to viability. Until last week America was the only nation on earth where the right to an abortion was constitutionally protected at all. Everyone else had to gain abortion through their elected representatives. Also tons of people think Abortion was banned nationwide but it just got shipped to elected representatives and there’s nothing stopping the elected representatives from passing a law that codifies Roe v Wade. So although I’m against the overturning of Roe due to the implied right to privacy I understand what Roe actually meant. That being said this current court is aligned with Scalia a lot more than Ginsburg.
So good to see some sensible discussion on the Senate Judiciary Committee rather than the nonsense circus which normally happens.
@@alexanderzerka8477 True 😂
Only eight years and thank you for your service
Screw television! I want a 3D virtual reality display of SCOTUS!
Look what cameras have done in the House and the Senate; there is no decorum and lots of grandstanding. Keep that drama OUT of the Court!
what about taking the tapings and setting them to court drawings? Have the drawings change every once in a while depending on who's speaking, perhaps?
they now allow to be recorded, i think recording the court is a good idea, for some cases that is. but then not release them until after such date. 5 years 10 years, w/e
On a more general note, I like the idea of having hearings like this in which already seated judges can give their general jurisprudence opinions. There's a contrast between them and the senators. The senators are more rigid, more careful, and less open. The judges on the other hand are more relaxed, more open, and more honest. I like how Scalia in the hearing talked about judicial review and about the contrast between the description given by others and how he actually views it. For the senators, everything public is essentially theater because they're essentially always campaigning with their senate speeches, behaviors, words, and tones. The judges don't have to worry about that. They aren't trying to push any sort of agenda. They are simply trying to inform everyone listening about the judiciary.
@6:27 has the time come? The visuals would only add entertainment value, which becomes a motivating factor for a population who has been so dumbed down(deliberately) that it lacks the capacity to consume and comprehend the written word.
Blumenthal lied about Vietnam!!!!!!
It's not media already cherrypicks lines from their rulings...
I mean why can’t they release the tapes after a 10 years or something? They should be released the same time as the audio but at least film it
You think that the arguments over these cases die down after a decade? Roe v Wade was decades ago, so no. Also these people serve for decades, they may still feel pressure if they think the case will be released before they leave. The tapes are more difficult to politicize than video.
Senator Blumenthal seems so likable there, it's hard to imagine he told everybody he was a Vietnam combat veteran.
I believe this is how we have that talk, you know .. the one we keep postponing while the media is complicit, wittingly or unwittingly; to the truth which is hardly visible in America today. Although, what do I know? I just hit 30, it'll be interesting to see my opinion years ahead.
The law is such a wonderful thing. How hard common law tried to get it right. What good fortune we’ve had to grow up with our constitutional republic. And an ocean on each side of us.
1) Is RBG still alive? 2) How many times did the media tell us the court should go this or that
direction but a jury of 12 chose otherwise? Cameras will cause a media clown circus.
not anymore :(
There is a lot of transparency in the Court. Not only are the actual tapes available, like Scalia said, but the briefs. You can read the briefs submitted by the parties and the decisions issued by the Court. Anyone who is really interested in what is going on has access to all that they can read, and that provides way more information than oral arguments do. It is all public information. It is no secret what a party is arguing or why the judges ruled a certain way. You can read it, and people who are interested do. If the court was a completely closed, mysterious organization then yeah, I'd think some transparency would be warranted... But it isn't. There is a lot of transparency. You can find out exactly what is going on, they just forbid video cameras and it is completely reasonable.
Why don't they just tape a few apolitical but simple boring ones every couple of years to educate the American public that is interested. I would still watch because I wanna seeeeee lol
That's not a bad idea. I don't know too many apolitical topics they handle.
@@mikepeterson764 Just simple tax code cases are pretty dry and regular ive heard.
@@MrOoglebog Fair enough.
They are all audiorecorded.
@@yossiea It's not the same even the justices have admitted it doesn't capture the feel of the court
My view is that it should be televised, BUT... There should be theater across the country that allow people to go and see it live, or at library where you can see recording of it. But those video should be criminal to be made public, locally or abroad. Or maybe use the off time of the supreme court and request playback in the theaters. And I only mean for the supreme court. For lower court, I feel it different. I would say that if both party decide it not to be publicized, the the judge should allow it unless it would cause trust issue with the public that is heavy. Now if the government is prosecutor, they should have NO SAY on this, it would be the defendant and the judge who decide. The idea of it to be televised should not be a tool to destroy someone even if your legal claim is not strong, so the judge should be able to protect a accused from that. But take Johnny vs Amber, in this case if Amber said no to it be televised, the judge would consider that the claim is that she defame publicly Johnny, which then become a public interest to know if she lied to the public, so it would be allowed.
Totally agree with Justice Scalia here.
It's actually quite simple; If you're concerned about the Law the make the time and effort to actually go and sit down in that Court!!!!
A fundamental value of the rule of law is the notion that justice is accessible to all individuals, regardless of wealth, creed, age etc. It's not easy for some people to take the time, say, off work, spend the money to get to a court, and all associated costs. When technology has advanced as much as it has, there is absolutely no reason for these proceedings to not be made more transparent.
what is the case judge breyer mentioned ?
Twitch plays Supreme Court Hearings.
Senator Blumenthal trying to get his buddies at CNN a soundbite of a justice asking a hypothetical question at oral argument so that they can portray that justice as an ideologue or tyrant.
how, he's just asking a question that people on both sides have been wanting an answer for
"Do you really think the process in the Senate has been improved since the proceedings have been televised???"
-The late and great US Supreme Court Associate Antonin Scalia (seated on the right) to US Senator Richard Blumenthal.
Blumenthal answered Scalia's direct question with a classic lawyer's dodge.
I mean the dodge proved scalia's argument. Because the senate is televised, blumenthal is pressured to lie or pass on the question to the detriment of the conversation. The senate used to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. No more.
Dearest Lord, PLEASE give us back Scalia. We need him now more than ever.
I don't care if televising the inner workings of the Supreme Court would inevitably lead to popular misunderstanding/resentment of the court. In fact, I'm absolutely certain that a lot of Americans would cherry-pick snippets of the proceedings and misconstrue a great deal of what was truly going on. I'm also fairly confident that this would endanger many aspects of the independent judiciary and violate the 'sanctity' of the body. GOOD! The SCOTUS has - for far too long - enjoyed its distance and isolation from the fickle and tyrannical masses. It's time we roped them into the domain of our vast American circus!! Hail the chaos!!!
To play devil's advocate - the court is already misrepresented, would video make things worse? The UK has a televised supreme court and, granted, it doesn't address controversial questions as frequently. But I don't believe that the press reactions (e.g to decisions on the EU withdrawal and prorogation of parliament) would have been any different if they had not been televised.
Time has changed and now so vile.
If you really cared that much, fly out to DC and attend, in person, a case you wish to see argued.
If the best judges in our country, who know and understand our laws at the highest level, all disagree that televised proceedings are not useful, then we need to listen. None of us do or can do what the US Supreme Court justices do. Veritas.
God bless justice Scalia
All televising does is force yall to be fake and becomes actors in front of the camera but end up being someone different off camera
Television in Congress has shown me that anybody can do there job. It shows me there are a lot of idiots running the country. Before television we thought these people were the best of the best. So I think it would do damage to the court.
You wear the robes because you observe British Maritime Law
Stay in real time and what's in front of yourself similar to rebuilding an old Electrical grid. I understand wouldn't hire a lawyer to rebuild an electrical grid. And vice versa wouldn't hire a electrical grid to run the supreme court. Bless you.
EVASSION OF/TO PROSECUTION
When Ketanji-Brown was going through her hearings one Republican said that the Supreme Court should not be video recorded because if so, as Supreme Court justices are human, that one would see the same sort of jackassery in the Supreme Court as one does among certain members of this judiciary committee.
That being said, I don't agree with Scalia that Supreme Court justices should be lawyers. Only a lawyer bent on muddying the water could decide that an amendment that speaks of a right of the people that shall not be infringed means one must first gain admittance into a militia to have the right. This would obviously make it a privilege that is spoken of as a right and they don't even see that this is a contradiction.
One can look at a law as a non-lawyer and, if one is honest, decide whether it runs afoul of one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights or the body of the Constitution.
I am in favor of televising the oral arguments. You already have a lifetime appointment so there is practically no fears in regard to job security. I don't think it would be a big intrusion, because like they mentioned, oral arguments are such a small portion of the case. I think it would be hugely beneficial to the American public.
@TheSmithersy My point is that doesn't matter because the justices have probably the best job security of anybody working in the federal government. No justice has ever been removed by impeachment. I'd like to see cameras in the supreme court. I don't think it would really hurt and if it does, then you can just remove them.
Genius
I agree 100%
Timber
The senators saying this like Americans would actually 100% care about learning about the justice system. You can tell a high school student to read a book and they will figure out any way to pass the test without reading the book, what makes him think a high school student would care about fucking laws and debates.
Bloomenthal was good then. Not anymore!
As long as your nice they will be too.
🇧🇷🇧🇷Hi, here in Brazil the Supreme Court (Supreme Federal Court), is televised and not good, the population treats it as politics, and by watching the sections the laity even think they speak cruelly against.🇧🇷🇧🇷
Exactly.
Blumenthal i been to Vietnam...you were a pencil pusher....
I think a C-Span showing oral arguments followed by opinion and descent readings would have great value. Say 45 minutes to two hours for each case. I absolutely find it disheartening that a subscription to WestLaw is required to access SCOTUS opinions. It seems foolish to me that citizens are expected to obey the law while simultaneously the law is kept hidden from them.
@TheSmithersy Where?
Two intellectual giants....
Monólogo Planilha
Justice Breyer “ we wear black ropes because we don’t speak for ourselves “. His judicial philosophy is based on his personal values are part of equation in interpreting the constitution. Unbelievable he would say that.
Sounds like they are just avoiding transparency by assuming the public is too ignorant to understand and they fear criticism of their proceedings as a result of how our media system thrives on thirty second clips. I can't help but feel I'm being condescended to by someone who feels they're intellectually superior.
It’s the ultimate arbiter of the law, it should be televised for the single reason of transparency.
Fronteira de Chicago ou onde Está meu Registro
Banda ou Grupo musical Catação Endomado e Trio Elétrico de Marataízes BR 466 BRAZIL ES. Comam no Tiro Barreira e Fronteira
Never forget blumenthal lied about being in Vietnam
PARLATÓRIO IDENTIDADE 209.44766.34-4 DORES DO RIO PRETO DE MINAS GERAIS DO BRAZIL TOMBOS DE MINAS E ENERGIAS PIANO MARCOS ALEX DOS SANTOS
The public or the prosecuted or both we in there Sharon 1 tv we not public we dont get access not the ones that want that access cus the rest thesebwanna watch shows and sports and play cards and gamble and dont even watch shit aint interesting gota get off the kiosk when u study for your case because this dude want his visit this next guy wanna look and show off the same naked pictures of his lady friends braggin bout how much money u got on the books
2 bad justices
If Blumenthal really thinks that we need to learn how the Court does its work, then the concession that the conferences won't be videotaped makes no sense. If he really thinks transparency is a good thing, he should be in favor of having all of his phone calls taped, all his e-mails recorded, and made publicly available.
Blumenthal is completely full of it. The transparency movement is the biggest locus of hypocrisy on Planet Earth.
The New Yorker has a great article talking about how Clarence Thomas stares off into space not paying attention most of the time, which explains his notorious silence: he's not paying attention. This would look horrible on cameras, of course...
kenektik lol yeah... he’s a terrible justice
Maybe he’s just listening. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Their court reporter didn't see it that way:
"As for Thomas, he is physically transformed from his infamous confirmation hearings, in 1991-a great deal grayer and heavier today, at the age of sixty-five. He also projects a different kind of silence than he did earlier in his tenure. In his first years on the Court, Thomas would rock forward, whisper comments about the lawyers to his neighbors Breyer and Kennedy, and generally look like he was acknowledging where he was. These days, Thomas only reclines; his leather chair is pitched so that he can stare at the ceiling, which he does at length. He strokes his chin. His eyelids look heavy. Every schoolteacher knows this look. It’s called “not paying attention.”
www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-disgraceful-silence
kenektik Maybe he is not paying attention but at least he’s moving. Maybe he’s just stares at the ceiling so he doesn’t get distracted by the litigant’s hairstyle or lipstick. I mean you can still hear what they are saying. So, we cannot say for sure if he’s daydreaming or not.
Anyway, since there was that study from Microsoft that in 2000 the human attention span was 12 seconds, and in 2013, it is eight, less than the nine seconds of a goldfish. So, we’re worse than the goldfish! Therefore, why should we trust the public to watch the courtroom proceedings? As the adage goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Will Eaton Read his opinions he is very smart and one of the best of all time
I don't like Scalia's politics by any sense of the imagination...bleeding heart liberal here..BUT i totally underatand with what Scalia is saying...in today's age...all people look for is that small moment to run on a loop to represent their party colors or how the other side is showing their partisan stripes...and that may be all fine and dandy in politics...its the name of that game...BUT that shouldnt occur inside the Supreme court...so while i am totally for it..i understand why they wouldnt be...and thats perfectly fine..
The constitution is biblically sound stop ruling verdicts that oppose the two laws love God love your neighbor your Jesus is God. I'm not there but stop being selfish and build on the rock. Start by being a learner of The Word of GOD. Read scriptures digest them and meditate on them. You have to want it for yourself. Taking kickbacks and bribes are corrupting your heart. Ask God Almighty to give you his wisdom. Don't be ashamed of the gospel. Tell a friend. Love you bye. Ps He can change your heart. You must be born again to see His kingdom. No Jesus no peace. Know Jesus and have peace. You Justices should retire and find a ways to serve the community be active do whatever it takes to obey the two laws. Swear in some young Christ followers to continue. Teach and educate the public. Anything that doesn't acknowledge Jesus as Lord Almighty should be as dung it stinks careful how you listen. Be a doer of the word not a hearer only don't be deceived He is not made fun of. If you obey the two laws you'll want to do the commandments they are not suggestions. Start from scratch and build your house on the rock not sinking sand. His promises are true GOD can't lie.Romans 8:28 instead good you can put bad and hate in there for those who don't love GOD. Choose the good and love in the promise. Christ taught us to love our enemies. Hard work building your house on the rock. It will be worth it when the storms of life comes. Stand firm in the evil day. Noah did so did Jesus and many others that had faith. Be still and know that He is GOD.
you're not speaking for the law Mr Justice. You speaking for your pocket and big corporation.
with all due respect.
While I'm not against cameras in the courtroom, I think it's telling that the Democratic Senator equates visual medium with higher transparency. I lean with the justices on this. Law is a verbal art. At a time when the country is more literate than ever, oral arguments are both written in transcripts and recorded in audio files. I don't see how visualizing that process increases an already exceptional level of transparency - something the Senate does not do as well (and is televised). The call for transparency is a red herring here.
No it’s just common sense really
Twitch plays Supreme Court Hearings.
"We wear black robes because we are speaking FOR THE LAW, NOT for ourselves as individuals."
-US Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (seated on the left)
That quote from Justice Breyer simply yet brilliantly articulates WHY the US Supreme Court WAS, IS, AND WILL BE the independent judiciary, NEVER subject to the dangerous influences of politics and public opinion, dangerous influences that have corrupted Congress countless times.