4 ms·

Having cameras in the court room would do 1000x more damage to the legitimacy of SCOTUS in the eyes of the public than seating blatant partisan justices, or eve

Having cameras in the court room would do 1000x more damage to the legitimacy of SCOTUS in the eyes of the public than seating blatant partisan justices, or even expanding seats. It would manufacture the kind of gross and disgusting meme-able content that we see in all other corners of media today, and it would turn these Judges into celebrity personalities rather than, ostensibly, impartial members of an independent branch of government. If you want to peek into oral argument, and actually learn something about the High Court, do yourself a favor and check out the incredible work Oyez does. They mash up the audio with the transcript, and sync it with a highlighted avatar for which Justice is speaking at the time. Having cameras in the court would destroy this medium of consumption, and relegate it to manipulated soundbites and distorted political ads. We should all detest any attempt to change the status quo here. Here's an example from Oyez. An interesting case that has some good back and forth, and highlights how this really is the best way to consume the history of the court. They have the entire record in there, and their website is very well organized, so you can find whatever case you want. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1195 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1195

reducesuffering 6y ago
Incredible resource. I feel like this is what proponents of cameras want, a medium for understanding the thought process and types of debate that goes into SCOTUS decisions. There were many interesting observations. Like how there were still interruptions (thus how hard that must be to do away with in oral debate), how there were no “umms or likes” I observed (makes sense, they would be intelligent speakers), and above all how humanizing the occasional joke and laughter were, for decisions that have serious impact.
- jskdvsksnb 6y ago
  > how there were no “umms or likes” I observed (makes sense, they would be intelligent speakers) Some of the justices get their questions out ... very ... slowly. I don't know if you can necessarily attribute the lack of 'filler words' to some superior intellect. I'm sure the fact they all went to a few ivy league schools also trained them to speak in a particular manner.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Oyez is probably a top 5 website out there today. It's beautifully built in its minimalism, and it does an amazing job of mainlining what is an intentionally inaccessible part of the US government to the public. IANAL, but I've listened to and read hundreds of cases from this site, and it's a seriously undervalued resource. Whenever decisions drop in June (aka SCOTUS season), it's one of my favorite summer redoubts - to ignore all the press write-ups about the cases and just go to the source material. Edit: As a testament to how deep this website goes, they've got audio from the 1960s curated in the same way. Here's a famous case (and very very relevant today) from 1963. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39

reducesuffering 6y ago

Incredible resource. I feel like this is what proponents of cameras want, a medium for understanding the thought process and types of debate that goes into SCOTUS decisions. There were many interesting observations. Like how there were still interruptions (thus how hard that must be to do away with in oral debate), how there were no “umms or likes” I observed (makes sense, they would be intelligent speakers), and above all how humanizing the occasional joke and laughter were, for decisions that have serious impact.

jskdvsksnb 6y ago
> how there were no “umms or likes” I observed (makes sense, they would be intelligent speakers) Some of the justices get their questions out ... very ... slowly. I don't know if you can necessarily attribute the lack of 'filler words' to some superior intellect. I'm sure the fact they all went to a few ivy league schools also trained them to speak in a particular manner.
remarkEon 6y ago
Oyez is probably a top 5 website out there today. It's beautifully built in its minimalism, and it does an amazing job of mainlining what is an intentionally inaccessible part of the US government to the public. IANAL, but I've listened to and read hundreds of cases from this site, and it's a seriously undervalued resource. Whenever decisions drop in June (aka SCOTUS season), it's one of my favorite summer redoubts - to ignore all the press write-ups about the cases and just go to the source material. Edit: As a testament to how deep this website goes, they've got audio from the 1960s curated in the same way. Here's a famous case (and very very relevant today) from 1963. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39