Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
C-Span's Long And Winding Road To A Still Un-Televised Supreme Court, Bruce D. Collins
C-Span's Long And Winding Road To A Still Un-Televised Supreme Court, Bruce D. Collins
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
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 …
Will It Make My Job Easier, Or What's In It For Me?, Kenneth N. Flaxman
Will It Make My Job Easier, Or What's In It For Me?, Kenneth N. Flaxman
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
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” as described in 1977 by the Seventh Circuit in Rush v. United States, 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 …
Constitutional Etiquette And The Fate Of "Supreme Court Tv", Bruce Peabody
Constitutional Etiquette And The Fate Of "Supreme Court Tv", Bruce Peabody
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In traditional media outlets, on the Internet, and throughout the halls of Congress, debate about whether the Supreme Court should be required to televise its public proceedings is becoming more audible and focused. To date, these discussions have included such topics as the potential effects of broadcasting the Court, the constitutionality of Senator Arlen Specter’s current congressional initiative, S. 344, and how the public would use or abuse televised sessions of our highest tribunal.
The Right Legislation For The Wrong Reasons, Tony Mauro
The Right Legislation For The Wrong Reasons, Tony Mauro
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
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.
Gee Whiz, The Sky Is Falling!, Boyce F. Martin Jr.
Gee Whiz, The Sky Is Falling!, Boyce F. Martin Jr.
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
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. And some comments, most notably Justice Souter’s famous exclamation in a 1996 House subcommittee hearing that “the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it’s going to roll over my dead body,” make it sound as if the Justices have forgotten that our nation’s court system belongs to the public, not merely the …
Granting Certiorari To Video Recording But Not To Televising, Scott C. Wilcox
Granting Certiorari To Video Recording But Not To Televising, Scott C. Wilcox
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Cameras are an understandable yet inapt target for Supreme Court Justices apprehensive about televising the high Court’s proceedings. Notwithstanding Justice Souter’s declaration to a congressional subcommittee in 1996 that cameras will have to roll over his dead body to enter the Court, the Justices’ public statements suggest that their objections are to televising—not to cameras. In fact, 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 Court’s desired result—the legislation disappearing …