Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Podcast Of One’S Own, Leah M. Litman, Melissa Murray, Katherine Shaw
A Podcast Of One’S Own, Leah M. Litman, Melissa Murray, Katherine Shaw
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
In this short Essay, we discuss the lack of racial and gender diversity on and around the Supreme Court. As we note, the ranks of the Court’s Justices and its clerks historically have been dominated by white men. But this homogeneity is not limited to the Court’s members or its clerks. As we explain, much of the Court’s broader ecosystem suffers from this same lack of diversity. The advocates who argue before the Court are primarily white men; the experts cited in the Court’s opinions, as well as the experts on whom Court commentators rely in interpreting those opinions, are …
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 …
Televising The Court: A Category Mistake (Symposium On Televising The Supreme Court), Christina B. Whitman
Televising The Court: A Category Mistake (Symposium On Televising The Supreme Court), Christina B. Whitman
Articles
The idea of televising Supreme Court oral arguments is undeniably appealing. Consequently, it is not surprising that reporters and politicians have been pressuring the Court to take this step. The other branches have been media-friendly for years, and Supreme Court arguments are already open to the public. Why should those of us who neither reside in Washington, D.C. nor have the time to attend Court proceedings be asked to depend on reporters for descriptions of the event? Even lower courts permit cameras. There is an understandable hunger for anything that will help us understand these nine individuals who have so …
Turner Broadcasting, The First Amendment , And The New Electronic Delivery Systems, Henry Geller
Turner Broadcasting, The First Amendment , And The New Electronic Delivery Systems, Henry Geller
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
After ducking the issue of the First Amendment status of cable television for years, the United States Supreme Court rendered its most important decision concerning the regulation of the new electronic media in Turner Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC. Turner involved the constitutionality of the "must-carry" provisions of the 1992 Cable Act (the "Act" or "Cable Act") which require cable systems to carry specified local broadcast television stations. While cable television began over four decades ago as a community antenna service, it changed drastically after the advent of satellite in the mid-1970's to also provide scores of satellite-delivered programs and to …
Starting From Scratch: The First Amendment Reporter-Source Privilege And The Doctrine Of Incidental Restrictions, Marcus A. Asner
Starting From Scratch: The First Amendment Reporter-Source Privilege And The Doctrine Of Incidental Restrictions, Marcus A. Asner
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note examines reporters' claims to a First Amendment reporter-source privilege in light of First Amendment doctrine as a whole. Part I briefly explains the current state of reporter-source privileges and the policies behind them. Part II then attempts to identify doctrinal support for the press's claim to a First Amendment privilege. Part II rejects the notion that the First Amendment affords special protection to the press as an institution. A reporter's status as a member of the institutional media is not irrelevant, however, and the well-established principle that the government may not target or single out the press for …
Actual Malice: Twenty-Five Years After Times V. Sullivan, David G. Wille
Actual Malice: Twenty-Five Years After Times V. Sullivan, David G. Wille
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Actual Malice: Twenty-Five Years After Times v. Sullivan. by W. Wat Hopkins
The Supreme Court In Politics., Terrance Sandalow
The Supreme Court In Politics., Terrance Sandalow
Reviews
Despite all that has been written about the bitter struggle initiated by President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to a seat on the Supreme Court, its most remarkable feature, that it was waged over a judicial appointment, has drawn relatively little comment. Two hundred years after the Philadelphia Convention, Hamilton's "least dangerous" branch - least dangerous because it would have "no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever"'-had come to occupy so important a place in the nation's political life …
The Doctrine Of Prior Restraint Since The Pentagon Papers, James L. Oakes
The Doctrine Of Prior Restraint Since The Pentagon Papers, James L. Oakes
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The purpose of this speech is to examine how the doctrine against prior restraint has evolved since the Pentagon Papers case. I intend to demonstrate that while traditional antipathy to prior restraint has for the most part remained strong, several recent cases foreshadow a dangerous expansion of well-established exceptions to the doctrine. To understand fully the significance of these recent cases, I will begin this lecture with a general discussion of the historical origins of the doctrine against prior restraint. I will then proceed with a critical overview of the landmark Pentagon Papers case, more formally called New York Times …
Freedom Of The Press And Public Access: Toward A Theory Of Partial Regulation Of The Mass Media, Lee C. Bollinger Jr.
Freedom Of The Press And Public Access: Toward A Theory Of Partial Regulation Of The Mass Media, Lee C. Bollinger Jr.
Michigan Law Review
The purpose of this article is to examine critically these decisions and to explore whether there is any rational basis for limiting to one sector of the media the legislature's power to impose access regulation. The article takes the position that the Court has pursued the right path for the wrong reasons. There is a powerful rationality underlying the current decision to restrict regulatory authority to broadcasting, but it is not, as is commonly supposed, that broadcasting is somehow different in principle from the print media and that it therefore is not deserving of equivalent first amendment treatment. As will …
Reaffirming The Freedom Of The Press: Another Look At Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, Michigan Law Review
Reaffirming The Freedom Of The Press: Another Look At Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This note does not take issue with the result of the decision. Rather, the argument herein is that the access theory deserves more complete consideration. The Court used first amendment precedents to strike down the reply statute without exploring whether the rationale behind these precedents mandated such a result. In an effort to justify more fully the Court's conclusion, this note will first present the underlying rationale of the pro-access argument. It will then analyze the constitutionality of statutes that would implement a right of access. Finally, the note will discuss several practical difficulties that access legislation would present.
The Expanding Constitutional Protection For The News Media From Liability For Defamation: Predictability And The New Synthesis, Michigan Law Review
The Expanding Constitutional Protection For The News Media From Liability For Defamation: Predictability And The New Synthesis, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
The tort of defamation has a long and complex history dating back to the sixteenth century. Though this tort from the very beginning did not find favor with the law courts, it has managed to survive into the second half of the twentieth century. But this survival may not endure much longer since the Supreme Court has found a deep conflict between the law of defamation and the first amendment. The reasons for this conflict and the Supreme Court's basic resolution of it in favor of first amendment values have been the subject of much scholarly comment, but the Court's …