Should Supreme Court proceedings be televised?

[A18]

Absolutely not. If this happens, the networks are going to pull out two minute or one minute segments they want to highlight, and give a horribly distorted view of the process.

[Emsworth]

Definitely not. The American People are already quite misinformed about the Supreme Court; their views would become even more distorted if they started listening to brief soundbites played on television.

[MODU]

I vote no.  All it does is change the hearings from one of trying to gauge if the candidate is qualified for the position to one where the Congressmen grandstand and try to make political speeches.

[Ebowed]

No.

[nlm]

Definitely not. The American People are already quite misinformed about the Supreme Court; their views would become even more distorted if they started listening to brief soundbites played on television.

Letting people see 30 second snips of something important would differ from the rest of American life how exactly? The American people are "allowed" to watch political attack ads; this would be more distorting how? People standing over the American public choosing what they are grown up enough to watch always smacks me wrong. If folks want to see the 30 second CNN version, well to bad for them; if they want the 4 hour CSPAN2 version, well maybe they need a life. But it would be their call.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Definitely not. The American People are already quite misinformed about the Supreme Court; their views would become even more distorted if they started listening to brief soundbites played on television.

Letting people see 30 second snips of something important would differ from the rest of American life how exactly? The American people are "allowed" to watch political attack ads; this would be more distorting how? People standing over the American public choosing what they are grown up enough to watch always smacks me wrong. If folks want to see the 30 second CNN version, well to bad for them; if they want the 4 hour CSPAN2 version, well maybe they need a life.

That's his point - it isn't different. He doesn't want that mess to be extended to the Supreme Court.

[Emsworth]

Definitely not. The American People are already quite misinformed about the Supreme Court; their views would become even more distorted if they started listening to brief soundbites played on television.

Letting people see 30 second snips of something important would differ from the rest of American life how exactly? The American people are "allowed" to watch political attack ads; this would be more distorting how? People standing over the American public choosing what they are grown up enough to watch always smacks me wrong. If folks want to see the 30 second CNN version, well to bad for them; if they want the 4 hour CSPAN2 version, well maybe they need a life.

That's his point - it isn't different. He doesn't want that mess to be extended to the Supreme Court.

Exactly. It would lead to the judiciary becoming even more politicized, and less insulated from the public, than it is now.

Moreover, the very idea of televising a judicial proceeding strikes me as absurd. Some participants in the hearing might become more interested in acting for the cameras than in actually resolving a legal dispute.

[nlm]

Definitely not. The American People are already quite misinformed about the Supreme Court; their views would become even more distorted if they started listening to brief soundbites played on television.

Letting people see 30 second snips of something important would differ from the rest of American life how exactly? The American people are "allowed" to watch political attack ads; this would be more distorting how? People standing over the American public choosing what they are grown up enough to watch always smacks me wrong. If folks want to see the 30 second CNN version, well to bad for them; if they want the 4 hour CSPAN2 version, well maybe they need a life.

That's his point - it isn't different. He doesn't want that mess to be extended to the Supreme Court.

I got that John, and was just poking a little fun at the whole "we are the wise big brother watching over the dumb American people" thing going on here.

[A18]

Oral arguments are typically one hour, not four, by the way.

I vote no.  All it does is change the hearings from one of trying to gauge if the candidate is qualified for the position to one where the Congressmen grandstand and try to make political speeches.

Uh, I'm not talking about confirmation hearings.

[Beet]

Absolutely not. If this happens, the networks are going to pull out two minute or one minute segments they want to highlight, and give a horribly distorted view of the process.

The networks already give a horribly distorted view of whatever they cover, so if they take up time distorting the way the court works, that'll just  prevent them from distorting something else. I don't see a net gain or loss here.

[A18]

It's true that they offer a distorted view of just about everything. But we shouldn't be giving them ammo to distort the judiciary process.

[ATFFL]

They already run audio clips and will publish snippets from the proceedings.  Showing the actual arguments would be better.

[Frodo]

I'm glad to see the results of this poll don't break along partisan lines..... 

[MODU]

Oral arguments are typically one hour, not four, by the way.

I vote no.  All it does is change the hearings from one of trying to gauge if the candidate is qualified for the position to one where the Congressmen grandstand and try to make political speeches.

Uh, I'm not talking about confirmation hearings.

I know.  I think I phrased it a bit oddly. 

[nlm]

Oral arguments are typically one hour, not four, by the way.

Pre-game and post game coverage. it's the American way. Kidding.

[Cubby]

They should definetely not be televised

[The Duke]

I think they should.  People have such a distorted view of the SC partly because its so inaccesible.  If it were more accesible. people might have a better understanding of what goes on.

[Cubby]

I think they should.  People have such a distorted view of the SC partly because its so inaccesible.  If it were more accesible. people might have a better understanding of what goes on.

Thats kind of a weak argument. Few people would watch the proceedings, those that would (like us) already understand how the court works. Anyway, the Supreme Court should just do its job, and not worry what people think about it, thats partly why Congress has become so corrupted.

[nlm]

I think they should.  People have such a distorted view of the SC partly because its so inaccesible.  If it were more accesible. people might have a better understanding of what goes on.

Thats kind of a weak argument. Few people would watch the proceedings, those that would (like us) already understand how the court works. Anyway, the Supreme Court should just do its job, and not worry what people think about it, thats partly why Congress has become so corrupted.

Congress has become corrupt because it worries about what the people of this country think? Please explain why you believe Congress actually cares what the people of this nation think (at least in terms of opinions that they can not manipulate with TV ads and PAC money) and how that leads to corruption. Do you also believe that if we prevented TV coverage of the legislative branch at the highest level it would reduce congressional corruption? Or does this have more to do with the spin put on the coverage which is made possible by the ridiculous amount of money in our political system? Just asking.

[The Duke]

I think they should.  People have such a distorted view of the SC partly because its so inaccesible.  If it were more accesible. people might have a better understanding of what goes on.

Thats kind of a weak argument. Few people would watch the proceedings, those that would (like us) already understand how the court works. Anyway, the Supreme Court should just do its job, and not worry what people think about it, thats partly why Congress has become so corrupted.

Congress is corrupt because they're on TV?  Hmmm, no.