Justices Alito and Kagan on Cameras in the Supreme Court (C-SPAN)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 мар 2019
- During a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Supreme Court budget, Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan answer questions on televising the court. Included in their answers are the following statements:
Justice Alito: "Most people think that our arguments should be televised. Most of the members of my family think that arguments should be televised. I used to think they should be televised." #SCOTUS cs.pn/2ERzWmt
Justice Kagan: "If the seeing it came at the expense of the way the institution functioned that would be a very bad bargain. I do worry that cameras might come at that expense."
Watch complete hearing here: cs.pn/2ERzWmt
I find these videos streams to be the most honest and transparent thing I have ever seen my government do. Thank you for streaming this.
Rob Smith I watch c-span on all day long. I hop around all 3 of their channels.
Cant fake the fake new..
Not sure if you know this but if you ever wanted to hear Supreme Court oral argument going back into the 1950's this website has all the audio recordings. www.oyez.org/ Sadly they don't quite go back to the Brown versus Board case but it gets into those years.
I learned a lot about Benghazi, the Impeachment, and other important situations. It takes media narrative out of it - perfect.
If more people actually paid attention to c-span, they would vote most of these crooks out.
a right-wing crook is a right-wing hero - djt, probably
Who came here just for Mr. Quigley and from FBE 😂?
YASSS MR. QUIGLEY
IMO audio is preferable to video as it forces full attention to what is being said.
In the age of deception, I need to see what I’m hearing.
I totally agree. The work of the SCOTUS is not political and should not be subjected to edits that will take sound bytes and use them to suit political purposes. Their work is highly specialized and require focus on the whole opinion.
Canadian supreme court, german constitutional court, etc all do video...the world hasn't ended. 😋
@ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ
The canadian supreme court, I agree, does have its wings clipped, particularly with the notwithstanding clause that can let provinces continue on doing something deemed unconstitutional (imagine gov George wallace invoking the notwithstanding clause to continue segregation).
The german constitutional court i would argue has more power than even the us supreme court. It deals only with constitutional issues and it is expected to interpret such in each case.
@@user-nf9xc7ww7m Most provinces requested for a notwithstanding clause for them to accept the Charter. And besides, not many provinces have used it in the past. It’s a very controversial subject and politically difficult to invoke the notwithstanding clause, hence you don’t see provinces using it left and right (though it has been used before).
That was great statement from both of judges good job
News clips would be twisted. But it wouldn't hurt for the people to know more of cases argued in front of SCOTUS. We all can agree that very few would go to the website and read. C-SPAN used to broadcast the audio on their 3rd channel which is not available to all.
Before I cut the cord, I was a C-SPAN junkie. No news tells us what's going on in DC except for a blurb now and then. Usually after something is done finalized, that's too late for us to contact our Representatives.
It's the best way our government will have transparency in our courts by allowing us to hear cases that are heard before The Supreme Court!
Did you watch this video? A small audience can aways watch the arguments but they said they can be heard as audio within a week. The transcripts are available same day.
In this clip Alito argues against lawyers chasing soundbites instead of a dialog and Kagan defends playing devil's advocate as a questioner to learn the strengths and weaknesses while saying in that process opinions she doesn't hold may be ascribed to her if these were on video.
The framers were wise enough to know some things should be further away from direct democracy. That's why the House is every two years (nearest to the people), a president every four, a Senator (originally picked by the state's legislature) every six and why justices are appointed for life. It creates institutional stability that can take the long view and not feel the pressure of the moment which can be wrong (Covington high schoolers, Jesse Smoullett...).
@@terrorzilla Very well said.
@@terrorzilla - when you say "institutional stability, what do you mean by that? Do you think the supreme court in its current state is a stable institution?
@terrorzilla it's been 5 years since your articulate comment. Care to update that given the publics' confidence level has substantially dropped since you posted it?
Justice Alito gave a litany of technology advances that have been instituted by the High court with the changing of the times, to advance access to the court's decisions and arguments made before the court.
My question is: why stop at cameras? Audio is audio, and the court utilizes it. Why stop when the very same audio include a visual component? Is there a concern that a Justice may be seen rolling his or her eyes at a response from one of the litigation attorneys?
The Justice's argument that it could create "sound bites" for the evening news media, does not square up here: so can audio releases.
It can. But is simply isn’t the same. Ask any TV producer-for most people, video and audio is far more compelling to most compared with audio. Especially arguments that require a certain time component, because people are too distracted, busy, or lazy. As someone else wrote in this comment section, just look at how cameras have altered hearings in Congress. Ultimately, I think it would add the kind of value that I appreciate-and I happen to think the same about Congressional hearings or Presidential speeches. I’m not looking for lots of dramatic visuals from my government.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I believe SCOTUS's handling and choice of cases over the last few years has proven that with a preponderance of evidence.
My only worry would be grandstanding like our congress does.
That's interesting that you fear it even though they are appointed not elected for supposedly this very reason.
Supreme Court proceedings are fundamentally hearings, auditory phenomena that allow us and the justices to sit, listen, read, think, and reflect on the arguments being posed. Not the litigants or their gestures or performances. Video seems counterproductive. Having audio, briefs, and transcripts seem sufficient.
I would like my public policy to be more than sufficiently accessible. We have high tech, if we dont use it to the fullest extent for government oversight, anything less is dangerously anti democratic. If you find the video feed distracting, turn it off and listen to the audio. I prefer the technology that is closest to in person communication. That is video and audio.
Do you really want a republic with most people ignorant of legal development? No thanks.
YAAAAAAS MR QUIGLEY!!!
Audio of oral arguments, transcripts, and all decisions/dissents are all published publically. Anyone genuinely interested has tons of material available freely.
Adding video would just put out of context soundbites on CNN/FOX/NBC and turn the Court into another primetime spectacle
tori's spirit animal (yes, i watched the fbe video)
Absolute transparency it’s about time we recognize that we are due for some transparency.
Thanks for
They are absolutely correct. One only needs to watch a televised congressional hearing to see enough grandstanding to last a lifetime. And if no cameras were there, it likely wouldn't happen.
Anybody from FBE?
So as you said there in everybody's video in you and snapping or cameras do you really think that's an appropriate and not very distracting when you are hearing cases that aren't seriously affecting people's lives?
It would be nice if they streamed their dissents too ...
Yes sound bites for the evening bias news routinely taking things out of contacts and another platform for lawyers to grandstand is definitely not something I want to see. Now I would be in favor of segments such as opening arguments closing arguments and judge's rulings viewable by the public. But everything in between most of us would only get sound bites and spin doctoring from the sources we seek information from.
I don't fear the sound bytes. I believe the wider availability of the longer format will cause the worst of the news twisters to lose their influence or get more honest.
@@robsmith5526 I can't argue with that point. Truth Seekers really do want it direct from the horse's mouth so to speak. My concerns is the influencing and propaganda spread throughout mainstream media and 15-minute sound bites on RUclips. Where I believe at least 75% of the population get their source of information within their comfort zones and biased bubbles. That 75% is just a rough estimation it's probably a lot higher
Yeah I go do your own homework and quit trying to open up the Supreme Court for freaking reality show I'm in is a people live is a serious situations
If it's true that their transparency comes from reason, I do not see how broadcasting the process would change it. The Supreme Court should not be worried about how they are perceived by the public because they have to be reasonable. A lawyer adding soundbites to arguments may be problematic, but having the highest court in the land opened for their citizens has a lot more value, in my opinion.
Moreover, the Court should not be influenced by social or political pressure(s).
Physics says the observer changes reality... Kagan!!! Double slit.
I know why they dont want cameras in court
Because the oral arguments are quickly and publicly available I see no reason for the accompanying video to also be made available to the public. News organizations can easily cut sound bits from the audio and they do it all the time. Relying on the inconvenience of the lesser medium of audio only to protect them somehow is disingenuous. Video, of course, will probably make their proceedings more attractive to the media, encouraging them to use it more than they would audio only. I say so be it. I wonder what they are really afraid of. If anything it might bring to clearer focus the public ramifications of their decisions. For example, they might have come to a different decision regarding Citizens United if they had to on live HD TV tell the American people that they thought it was a good idea to allow corporations to have the same rights as a person - a totally ridiculous decision which has completely ruined our campaign finance and voting system. Also I think it would make a justice think a little more carefully at how long they remain in the bench. Since the law says they can remain their until death, I think we would be surprised at the number of times an elderly member of the Court has fallen asleep in the course of an argument. Plus can you imagine your 98 year old grandparent in a position of such great influence and power?? Having a camera on these folks increases transparency and keeps them accountable to the people. Besides, it's only the oral arguments and some judges never even speak, so really I only see positives. If they don't like how the press might portray them, take that up with the press.
Fear of getting smeared by the press and looking bad on a live stream does not provide justification for hiding public policy development from public oversight in the fastest and most accessible way technology allows (clearly that is live TV).
Democracy and technology are not going to ruin the institution. Just go on the live stream. People will be more understanding when they hear it from you and it will be harder for the news to smear you in sound bytes because the longer format soures will be so much more accessible.
Use the technology!
People can read the opinions. Stop being lazy
Cameras have had a terrible effect on Congress. The last thing we need is The for the Supreme Court to end up the same. And it’s just them sitting on the bench and the lawyers at the podium, there’s nothing visually important about SCOTUS arguments.
@@147pogol8 more people will see hear and understand more from video than audio alone. You can pretend audio is enough but that's 20th century argument in a world that has seen business video chat become the new normal. Congress could be bigger.. cameras are the least of problems.
Once again Rob, stop being lazy and read the transcripts. There's no value added in using video clips.@@robsmith5526
The majority of what they do is read amicus briefs and other documents from lawyers. The arguments are maybe 15% of what goes on, and their lengthy opinions (for which there is also audio available) are fully about how the justices came to their decision. I don’t see at all how not being on TV is hiding public policy, since they have an incredible amount of audio and documents put on their website immediately after they take place.
Best song ever 10/10.
surprising, they don't want the American people to see what they are doing.
@05:21 "when I got to the supreme court, I saw things differently"
did the federalist society's purchase and ownership of you have anything to do with that change of view?
It’s funny that Alito and Kagan at both their hearings wanted cameras at the Court but now don’t want it.
Did Sxalia get killed at the hunting trip that Kagan invited him to after he dissented. Mmm sounds smelly and fed soc cult
@@clairedeiotte8898 It's strange you mention that because i was reflecting of his, "unusual." death when it was reported and recall three things. 1.) he died and was apparently found face down in his pillow?... In a random hotel in the middle of nowhere... thats a bit strange. 2.) It was the first time on social media and in real life that I saw Americans celebrate a fellow American's death.... absolutely disgusting display by left leaning americans that day... Vile.... 3.) Obama made brief mention of it and never attended the funeral(he snubbed him.) I found that body language to be particularly glaring and revealing about Obama's character. I dont want to hear bs either that he was, "too busy blah blah." because Trump attended RBG funeral without doing that and in a Pandemic. It makes me wonder if McConnell knew something else happened to him that we weren't being told. Who knows, but his death is mystifying to this day.
@@clairedeiotte8898 Kagan was not with him at the time he died 🤡
+
They disagreed with each other quite often, but they were still very good friends. In fact, all the previous (pre-Trump era) Supreme Court justices are good friends.
Video is just too easily manipulated with all the technology we have and we really need to addressed that
HOORAY MR. QUIGLEYYYYYYYYY
Idk i suppose some who serve in our government want a autocracy.
Cameras and microphones- to document the great success diversity has been on America
Where's Ruth?
I was just thinking this myself
Cameras in the courtroom would answer the question about RBG.
They only asked Alito and Kagan
@@anonymouss974 how do you know she wrote them? She has a staff that could easily have written those opinions. Why is it so difficult to get a current picture of her?
@@anonymouss974 okay, so no picture?
The supreme court is where the big expensive cases go.
It's not a hard issue. Cameras are for entertainment. SCOTUS hearings on TV would be terribly corrosive to the institution.
I'm the camera-man at 6:21
Bader Bader Bader???
I have yet to see how being okay with cameras affects people's thinking.
When someone likes someone (perhaps a stranger he/she heard rumors about), he/she acts differently.
I tried very hard to be friends with a female just because she reminded me of a former classmate.
Alito makes a good argument ☺️
Great point by Elana Kagan
I do not agree with camera's in the court. and in fact wish they would take them out of the house and senate. these people play too the camera. some even come out every day just too be seen. if you don't think Inhofe Cruz and Mike lee along with the guy asking these questions don't play too the camera's along with the rest you are sadly mistaken. most of these people would never be seen if it weren't for these camera's. take them all out.
Video tape and stream it all. Its our right.
MR. QUIGLEY!!!!!!
Good because I’m at the point where I’m having trouble believing Justice Ginsberg is even alive... so to make sure there is absolutely no question I say YES! I pay for these people I want to see my tax dollars at work
Cameras in the Supreme Court is a dumb idea. If your that interested feel free to listen to the oral arguments or read the opinions.
Or they can just have one camera by a non journalistic entity to just show the audio and the whole thing in 1 angle 1 way start to finish no editing cause if you can't do that then don't do it
That's how they do it in most state supreme courts.
These people are confused. They are placed with questions relevant to human safety and all they do is sit there and randomly use metaphors and tell little stories that have little to do whats going on.
Bodylanguage. Pay attention to what you say and do we, and angel are watching yall please members of Congress!!!!!!!! I would love to be proud to be a America
Kids walk in abd tgen walk out - very distracting.
They are afraid their reputation would be damaged because of the ways by which they approach the cases
"This will date me" lol
Don't worry, Alito. Pretty sure people know already or *can at least imagine* how old you are.
Lol arguments
DO IT!
JUST DO IT!
Of course there should be cameras in the Court. Hell, many other federal courts have TELEVISED proceedings (at least sometimes), believe it or not! The Supreme Court doesn't deserve 'special protection', ffs.
Excuses excuses.
They think cameras are best pointed at us , but then the justices vote on dumb things like businesses are people.Yeah we need cameras in the subprime court we should demand it so we can see the lawless in action.
Alito trembled while making excuses for hiding legal arguments on public issues from the public in the most clear way possible. That Alito considers live public oversight 'damaging to the decision making process' is the most anti democratic thing I have heard.
While I’m not going to defend his claim about the decision making process I will say that the argument reception on behalf of the people listening to these argument in clips or snippets that don’t have the care to read the opinions on their own would most certain change the perception that the content would have and in my opinion detract into numerous pointless quarrels over rhetoric etc. There’s not non-democratic about not televising Supreme Court hearings, Justice Alito cleared stated the ease of access to current and previous SCOTUS reports with an immense level of detail.
Watch again. Alito and Kagan both agree that visual news media would hamper decision making. You can oversee more than enough through transcripts and audio. We don't need to feed the news media trolls on both sides of the political aisle and destroy our democracy through lies and toxicity.
BlueHeel98 I’m not denying that they did make that argument, I was rather not refuting it and instead aiming at the claim that Alito’s position was ‘anti-democratic’, which I believe is incorrect
We have two other branches to preen and puff up for the camera. Transcripts and audio are already readily available for SCOTUS.
Your lying
Televise it live. Get over yourselves.
Where’s Ruth?
She’s dead baby. Been dead