4 ms·
I 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 eve
by dantheman 6y ago
I 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.