The Senate Judiciary
Committee voted in favor of a bill that would allow televising of US Supreme
Court proceedings
|
Friday, February 10, 2012, Sung Un Kim
Senate Judiciary Committee approves bill to televize Supreme Court
proceedings
[JURIST] The Senate
Judiciary Committee [official website] on Thursday voted 11-7[CSPAN video] in favor of a bill [S 1945 text, PDF] that would allow
televising of US Supreme
Court [official website] proceedings. Currently, only few citizens can hear the
proceedings in person, and audio recordings are released after the
proceedings are over. However, the bill would not make televising proceedings
mandatory: "The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all
open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the
majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would
constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties
before the Court." A similar bill, The Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2011 [HR
3572, PDF] is still pending in the House Judiciary Committee [official website].
This bill, when
first proposed, faced numerous criticism as well as support and initiated a
longstanding debate
[JURIST report; hearing materials] among judiciary and
congressional officials. Supporters argued that the bill would create a more
transparent government and secure citizens' right to access governmental
materials. On the other spectrum, there was concern that parts of the
proceedings could be taken out of context and be abused creating
misrepresentations of the court.
= = = == = = ==
==============
The bill that allows
the Court proceeding to be televised was introduced before. It is not the
first of the kind.
To be clear, the US
Supreme Court is not kept secret. Whoever is interested in watching the Court
proceeding can go visit the Court. There are four ways to secure the seat:
(i) 5 minute line where you don’t have to wait in long line until being
admitted to the Court room and watching about 5 minutes, (ii) camp out in
case of high profile – if you want to sit as long as you want, you have to
wait in line; from 5 or 6 am if a high profile case, (iii) insider ticket
that is given to each party to the case that is argued, and (iv) if you know
the Supreme Court Justice … you know. More
to the point, the decision made by the Court is made public.
There are three reasons
against the idea of televising the proceeding. The Justices argue that (i)
approval rating to the Court is higher than executive and legislative branch.
No legitimate reason to subject the Court under scrutiny. In any event, the
Court decision is made public. The proceeding is open to public; (ii) we are
good (e.g. in terms of integrity) enough to make televising unnecessary, and
(iii) if televised, it will change the attitude of attorneys as well as
Justices.
However, Supreme
Court Approval Rating Dips to 46% (October 3, 2011), down 15 percentage
points from 2009. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/149906/supreme-court-approval-rating-dips.aspx
There is no
practical incentive for the Justices to support televising. President and
legislative branch need public support to secure their job, whereas the
Justices can sit as long as they want. Whether or not people hate them, they
can continue to do their job in a way they want.
What if the bill is
passed into law?
The Court still can
craft the rules under which proceedings are allowed to televised. In which
case, how can the rule be challenged?
(i), Government can petition
for review of the rule. The Justices are not necessarily required to recuse
themselves, as there have been the US Supreme Court cases where the Court was
a party. In addition, there is no statute or rule that articulate the
recusal. The recusal is, in essence, up to Justice themselves.
(ii), public
interest group can petition if it meets the requirement of organizational standing.
(iii) there seem to
be a mechanism where Congress may strike down a rule that is mandated to
implement statute.
|
