Chief Justice John Roberts on Cameras in the Supreme Court (C-SPAN)

[jackwendigo]

I think his comparison to the Senate is very telling. Do we really want to see Supreme Court arguments degenerate into grandstanding and posturing to a televised audience like the Senate has? The transparency argument isn't very good considering they do in fact release the audio recordings of arguments - it's not like it's happening behind closed doors in a shroud of secrecy.

[skifree]

accountability of the appointees to the people is at risk not the legitimacy of the court

[andrejvirag]

USA is the greatest country in the world! GOD BLESS AMERICA! :)

[Mollecules]

The cameras should be there no matter what just like cops not to be subjected for publication as live stream but to be a document like the verbal records we have come to a timeline that almost requires a record of live documents (video record) for anyone to have. For him to say the lawyer's and judges would behave differently is exactly why it is necessary.

[stephenbrown]

Are you your brothers keeper it is your job to educate the public about two laws love Him with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. If you don't do this your following the devil. No middle ground. The balls in your court. Mr. Judge. Honor GOD and he will honor you. Respectfully yours SmB

[Benedetta]

@Spetz I am married now. Fix rhe mess @AHA @WhiteHouse

[williamgregory]

Without a doubt John Roberts has the air of a spoiled rich kid who’s been told he’s a special boy his whole life and got straight A’s on C- work because his parents cut a huge check to the school every year.

[michaelsommers]

His argument could also be used to support not releasing transcripts or audio recordings, or indeed for keeping the entire process secret.

[ThePbird]

The Supreme Court building in March. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
By Sheldon Whitehouse
September 6 at 5:01 PM PT

Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, represents Rhode Island in the U.S. Senate.


Politics is a team sport. We battle, and our courts are supposed to referee our disputes.
But what if one team spent years and millions of dollars to capture the referees, so the refs could declare that team the winner whenever they fell short on the field? If you were on the other team, you’d cry foul. You’d ask: “Hey, when did the law become a team sport, too?’’
A few weeks ago, several Senate colleagues and I did just that when we filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case before the Supreme Court in which the National Rifle Association had urged the court to continue its “project” (the NRA’s term) to undermine gun regulations.
We cried foul. That triggered a remarkable response.
Conservative media lit up in unison. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, for instance, attacked us for advocating “court packing, ” something we did not advocate. The Journal used language so similar to a separate National Review op-ed that it issued an unusual editor’s note denying plagiarism. Then, all 53 Republicans in the Senate cranked out a letter to the court’s clerk decrying our brief. What hoopla.
So, what did we actually say?
We said this: From 2005 through the fall term of 2018, the Roberts court issued 73 5-to-4 partisan decisions benefiting big Republican donor interests: allowing corporations to spend unlimited money in elections; hobbling pollution regulations; enabling attacks on minority voting rights; curtailing labor’s right to organize; denying workers the ability to challenge employers in court; and, of course, expanding the NRA’s gun rights “project.” It’s a pattern.
Of course, in other decisions during that period, such as the…...etc. etc..

[joy-qfrp]

I'm dying to know who will be the actor who will play the living tribunal in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Someone who has the same roberts voice would look good on the living tribunal.

[jeffrytrefry]

I am so proud of John Roberts for being his own man and not a puppet. Many of us feared for America when he became top justice! He is exemplary in the thought and fairness he puts into his work! However, I still believe he was the chosen one to make sure that campaign contributions would be basically unlimited! Sadly he achieved this, and this man is honorable and not a partisan sellout. America is so fortunate to have him as Chief Justice. When things are tough this is the guy others need to listen to! Roberts is the real deal! If there is game in him I haven't seen it!

[WayneT]

What he meant to say was cameras and video would show the world what kind of shit goes on in there that they don't want the world to see.

[antonellogdimattia]

If we making deals with the shooting in bars, I vote for chastity belts. The keys? Trow it away!

[Innovative_Mic]

The constitutional monarcy doesnt want attention drawn to what they do. The reason our democracy has become such a shit show is because of there rulings in cases like citizens united and shelby county vs holder.

[ronalddibbern]

Carry out the Constitution, when you appear on social media there should be a dollar sign above your head.

[RichardBuckerCodes]

Having cameras in the SC might offer transparency that the SC does not want

[markgreen]

I doubt that there would be a very large audience for televised Supreme Court cases. It would generally only be watched by law junkies as, unlike regular court proceedings, they are not so much concerned with guilt or innocence but rather whether or not lower court decisions were arrived at in accordance with the Constitution. That being said, I still think they should be televised for that small percentage of the population who are law junkies.

[johndove]

There is no camera in court in order to able judges to do what ever they want, if it is legal or not, if people will see the work of court, they will be mad and call to hang most of the judges.

[davidellis]

It is 2018 time for us to see the justices at work. Transparency is the right thing. Let's see the show.

[jrizaac]

Roberts: Transparency would expose what we’re doing so we can’t have it