9 ms·
Supreme Court of the United States to Live Stream Oral Arguments
- JumpCrisscross 6y agoI'm hesitant about this. Separating the drama of a case from the logic of the opinion helps keep justices from becoming politicians. We don't want justices incentivised to work sound bites into their courtroom discourse. On the other hand, most reporting on SCOTUS rulings is terrible. It focusses on the implications of the ruling and almost to zero degree on its legal logic. That makes the court feel like a political body.
- pc86 6y agoI'm against live streaming SCOTUS but I'm not convinced this incentive would exist. This is the last job any of these people will ever have. The only possible promotion is for the Associate Justices to become Chief Justice, and with Roberts on the court that is unlikely-bordering-impossible. There's literally nowhere higher for any of them to go. However like dantheman said I can see this as a huge negative incentive for the attorneys trying to get a little more air time or exposure.
- atonse 6y agoYou cannot promote Associate Justices to Chief Justice. The framers explicitly prevented this since they didn't want associate justices to lobby for the job. I don't remember where I read this, but it sounded plausible, given we've never seen this happen before.
- haneefmubarak 6y ago> Like the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There is no requirement that the Chief Justice serve as an Associate Justice, but 5 of the 17 Chief Justices have served on the Court as Associate Justices prior to becoming Chief Justice. From (https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx). It would be pretty odd and a weird special casing compared to the norm if the president and congress were unable to nominate a given judge to a higher position within the overall US federal court system, solely because they were on SCOTUS.
- atonse 6y agoI clarified below. I actually thought of this clarification (that technically a judge could RESIGN and then be nominated, but that's different from promoting them)
- rootusrootus 6y agoAn Associate Justice can be nominated to be Chief Justice, but they need to be confirmed again just like a fresh appointment. Rehnquist is a recent example.
- alharith 6y ago> We don't want justices incentivised to work sound bites into their courtroom discourse. Although foreign to many in our field, arguably the most important work a judge does (besides the obvious) is communicate effectively and clearly. I trust them to be professional.
- blahbhthrow3748 6y agoYou've never heard a Justice Breyer hypo
- microcolonel 6y agoI highly encourage anyone interested in the proceedings of SCOTUS to go to https://oyez.org/ https://oyez.org/ for an excellent and well-typeset feed, complete with audio and the official transcripts (be careful with the official transcripts, they sometimes say the opposite of what the audio says, no joke). Here's a recent example, a petition by the Attorney General and the FCC against AAPC for robocalling, that is pending argument: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-631 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-631 Here's one, a petition against the Attorney General seeking relief from removal after committing three felonies, that's been argued and decided: Can a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States be “render[ed] . . . inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)? https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-725 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-725
- pstuart 6y agoI'd argue that several of the justices are politicians in black robes.
- rootusrootus 6y agoI expect a lot of people would agree with you. Though I'd bet about half would disagree on which justices were the politicians...
- ceejayoz 6y agoOne of those halves has more evidence, though. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conservative-group/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conse... > Conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas is launching yet another project to wage war on multiple fronts of America’s most heated cultural and political debates. This time, however, her plan will include a project to “protect President Trump” using at least two new campaign-related political entities, according to a presentation obtained by The Intercept and Documented. > Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, unveiled the new venture in a closed meeting of GOP lawmakers, donors, and Christian-right leaders last month, seeming to make reference to the movement disarray and electoral losses suffered by conservatives in the Trump era — and the gains made by left-wing groups and politicians. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-now-lobbyist-048812 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-... > Now, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has recast herself yet again, this time as the head of a firm, Liberty Consulting, which boasts on its website using her “experience and connections” to help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies.
- curiousgal 6y ago> That makes the court feel like a political body Isn't it already so though? Since the judges are appointed by the sitting president (in case of a vacancy of course).
- SkyBelow 6y ago>That makes the court feel like a political body. Is it not? From the method that I've seen legal logic applied, it feels heavily political. What counts as a loophole that will be struck down and what counts as a loophole that will be allowed often doesn't have any core logical justification that isn't political. There are a bunch of rules, but even more exceptions. There is a bunch of consistency, but not on the level that you find in actual logic, math, or computational science (like with Turing machines). This has long led me to view it like a bunch of political entities playing pretend at being logical. Pretty decent pretend, better than most other systems, but when compared to truly logical systems, still clearly pretend. You can also see this at macro scale application of the law. For example look at how the law is applied when you break it down by class, race, and sex. It clearly is done so unfairly, which leads on to conclude that either the unfairness is logical, or that the system isn't logical at the core. Jury nullification is another example where it breaks down, as to say it doesn't exist when the things that logically give rise to it must exist is a contradiction.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago> Is it not? From the method that I've seen legal logic applied, it feels heavily political. Courts are not supposed to be political. To the extent that they are, they are dysfunctional. Unfortunately, there are a lot of dysfunctional courtrooms today, including the Supreme Court—or rather, more accurately, there are a lot of dysfunctional justices who bring politics into their jurisprudence. So I agree with OP—anything that adds political overtones to courtrooms probably isn’t a good idea. Let’s not encourage further jurisprudential dysfunction.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> it feels heavily political SCOTUS is not apolitical. (No human institution is.) That doesn't make it a political body. I've found helpful to read the official opinion of decisions I disagree with. Start to finish, including the dissent. With respect to modern rulings, I have yet to walk away finding the arguments abysmal. In almost every case, I disagree with the law, not the court. When I disagree, it's because the law--as you say--had holes. The court fills these in, by necessity. On this, it's fair to find disagreement. But the degree to which these holes are filled is usually impressively restrained. There are very few modern case where, given the facts and circumstances of the case or controversy, and within the context of the surrounding law, I found the interpolation obscene. > not on the level that you find in actual logic, math, or computational science Courts aren't deterministic. That doesn't make them a political body. It's an open debate as to whether we want the law to parse like code. I don't. As long as lawmaking is under human control, the law is comprehensible to humans and humans remain free agents, the law--and thus courts--will have a degree of unpredictability to them.
- Shivetya 6y agoIf anything based on some observations it has brought less sound bite seeking than before. Even Thomas asked questions apparently having shunned the somewhat chaotic methods in place before. Other Federal Courts have gone to similar methods of operation with Judges asking questions in order of seniority. This format also benefits those following others because you have more time to order your thoughts. Another view on the Supreme Court using Streaming https://reason.com/2020/05/04/the-supreme-courts-surreal-stilted-and-surprisingly-normal-streaming-oral-argument/ https://reason.com/2020/05/04/the-supreme-courts-surreal-sti...
- banads 6y agoWhat precisely do you mean by "political"? Aren't there often major political/partisan conflicts about the appointment of justices?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dantheman 6y agoI think live streaming is terrible for supreme court. Especially since the oral arguments are the least important part. It's good for them just to release everything at the end of year in June. If anything this will encourage lawyers and justices to get in interesting tidbits so it can be part of the shit 24 hour news cycle... I can see no benefit coming from this.
- claudeganon 6y agoThe benefit accrues to Capital owners, who have invested a great deal in control of the media and right-wing appointees to judiciary. Live-streaming allows them to enforce message discipline.
- gbear605 6y agoHow is this different from before for that? They’ve previously allowed audio records, just not video, from my understanding.
- colejohnson66 6y agoNot to mention that anyone could watch them live before this whole virus thing. You may have had to start waiting outside at like 4 a.m. sometimes, but you could. This will just broaden the reach of who can watch it live.
- adambetsoup 6y agoOral arguments are pretty important. The questions the judges ask (minus Thomas because he never speaks) shed a light on how they case will be judged.
- LyndsySimon 6y agoYes, but you seemed to hit on an important point - the questions inform how the case will be judged. The questions themselves, not the answers. Generally speaking, it seems that the outcome of a case is pretty much decided before oral arguments are even presented. They seem to be treated as an opportunity for the Justices to fill in any unanswered questions and check their assumptions.
- vorpalhex 6y agoMost Supreme Court cases can be observed, which is part of how we hear about them. In this day and age, it just so happens that observing them can now be opened up to everyone. And yeah, like any new thing I expect there to be a few missteps at first but this is ultimately a good thing if it convinces Americans to be more aware and involved with Supreme Court picks going forward.
- jcranmer 6y agoIt's also worth noting that the format of oral arguments has changed for this period. Instead of a free-for-all questioning section, each justice will have a chance for N minutes to question the counsel (without interruption by other justices), proceeding in order of seniority. I can't say I'm a fan of this change.
- thaway757383884 6y agoIf I understand this correctly, they changed the format of these legal proceedings to better suit the TV coverage? Is this the NFL we are talking about or the Supreme Court?
- jcranmer 6y agoActually, the change probably has more to do with the difficulty of social cues for turn-taking over videoconference calls.
- apetresc 6y agoWhy do you think it's for TV coverage? It seems plausible to me it's just better-suited for the medium (of a remote call). If you listen to the in-person oral arguments, there's a ton of interruption and pre-emption all the time (with the Justices always winning the pre-emption battle against the attorneys), which works fine with the visual cues and 0 latency of being present together. If they tried to imitate that same style over a typical Zoom session it would be a disaster, people talking all over each other, etc.
- Klathmon 6y agoSo I'll preface this by saying I've never heard supreme court oral arguments before, so i don't know how they "normally" work, but yesterday I listened in on the first streamed oral arguments, and this change stuck out to me too. Several times the counsel was kind of interrupted to move the questions on to the next justice in line, and the rate at which they moved through them seemed extremely fast compared to what I expected. This is the highest court in the country, adding what feel like artificial time restrictions into the ability for the counsel to properly explain their reasoning and points seems like a really bad idea. (obviously within reason, you shouldn't have a lawyer that can talk for 20 hours to delay a case, but it seemed like during the "United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V." part they were moving from justice to justice in what felt like under a minute or 2, cutting the counsel off every time.) Again, I'm far from an expert here, so can any actual experts (or people with more knowledge of this world) offer some clarity on if this is "normal", and perhaps why it's like this?
- tzs 6y agoFor those who want to watch on their TV but don't have cable or a streaming service that includes C-SPAN, it's also on Court TV's broadcast network [1]. I stumbled across it yesterday on channel 13.2 in the Seattle region. (It looks like Court TV also does a free live stream of the channel on their website). I don't know if they cover the whole session or not, as I only watched for a bit. [1] https://www.courttv.com/where-to-watch/ https://www.courttv.com/where-to-watch/
- James_Henry 6y agoOr you could just watch it on C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471619-1/supreme-court-oral-argument-usaid-v-alliance-open-society-international-inc&live https://www.c-span.org/video/?471619-1/supreme-court-oral-ar...
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoMany of the comments suggest there's a problem with Supreme Court live streaming due to soundbyte media coverage. If you take a step back, the problem isn't the Supreme Court, but the regulation of media. From 1949-1987, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine [0] assured broadcasters present issues in a balanced, equitable manner. Instead of holding back the oral arguments, we ought to consider how we discuss topics presented to SCOTUS in a fair and equitable manner. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- wl 6y agoThe already dubious legal rationale for the fairness doctrine disappeared with cable and satellite television. The internet danced on the rationale's grave. The limited broadcast spectrum that is theoretically regulated to benefit the public rather than licensees no longer meaningfully limits the diversity of views and the ability to propagate them in audio/visual media.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoA sizable portion of the Boomer generation gets the majority of their news from cable television. The generation has outsized influence on policies enacted and election results due to their presence in Congress and proportionate share of the electorate. The fairness doctrine, if it still existed, would positively impact the functioning of our democracy.
- linuxftw 6y agoMore wasteful spending for no real benefit to taxpayers.
- iandanforth 6y agoFor context this is a major about-face for the court. They have had the option to do this for decades now and have explicitly refused.
- rotskoff 6y agoI follow SCOTUS news pretty closely; the discussions below are a bit misguided. Audio transcripts of oral arguments are already widely available---you can even subscribe to the Oyez podcast feed and find them in your podcast queue a few days after the court hears the case. The new thing here is "live", so as a practical matter, it probably doesn't constitute a huge change. If there were an incentive for the justices to produce "sound bites", it would already exist. C-SPAN coverage will probably increase the visibility a little, but, having listened to many of the arguments this term, I'd say that most cases are too technical to be of much general interest. A second point: oral arguments are performative. The cases are argued via written briefs and oral arguments provide a venue for the justices to question the petitioners about their arguments and air their responses to what the believe the other justices are thinking. Streaming the arguments, as opposed to making available courtroom audio after the fact, doesn't seem to change the dynamic much. Many court watchers have taken this as an optimistic sign that perhaps the court will allow video. However, this is one thing that the court has strongly resisted. Some of the justices are known to prize their relatively low public profile and there's been speculation that maintaining that pseudo-anonymity is perhaps a reason for the hesitance.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> as a practical matter, it probably doesn't constitute a huge change This is a reasonable point on which to disagree. (I disagree with it.) The difference between a live performance and recorded one are huge. Playing soundbites on cable TV is, I believe, much more likely with live arguments than with recorded ones. I hope you're correct.
- LyndsySimon 6y agoI agree with you. I follow SCOTUS cases within a couple of narrow interests, and there is always much discussion about what was really meant by questions that were asked. Much of that is due to lack of tone. Hearing oral arguments is going to be interesting. I don't know that it's ever been available to the general public.
- 6y ago
- jakeogh 6y agoMy fav (Heller 2008): Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008)[1] for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290