[ad_1]
Editor’s Note: Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today Contributor Board. follow him on twitter @RaulAReyes. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. Read more opinions on CNN.
CNN
—
Oral arguments resume in the Supreme Court next week, with student debt relief, immigration and industrial relations on the agenda. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear from some of the country’s finest attorneys on issues that affect Americans’ daily lives.
But sadly only a fraction of our fellow citizens are able to see the judges in action. Now more than ever, we need to change this outdated policy.
Supreme Court proceedings are not secret. The court has already provided transcripts and audio recordings of oral arguments. He also has 50 seats reserved for the public to attend oral arguments in court.
However, many people do not know or do not know how to easily access these transcripts. In any event, do not convey the tone of voice, body language, and other nuances of the exchange between the judge and attorney during oral argument. .
And competition for a limited number of seats is fierce, often with early morning queues and even camping out the night before to be admitted.
Why should access to oral argument be limited to well-connected people, or to those who live in or near Washington, DC and are in a position to spend hours in the Supreme Court?
Allowing cameras to be brought into court, as C-SPAN currently broadcasts and rebroadcasts the proceedings of the U.S. House and Senate, has been described by one bipartisan advocacy group as “the most powerful, most explicable.” It provides Americans with a window into what they call “the less responsible part.” of government. ”
Broadcasting the Supreme Court’s arguments is not a radical or partisan idea. In 2016, the Government Accountability Office released a report examining the potential value of his live audio and video coverage of High Court hearings. The GAO concluded that cameras raise public awareness and educate the public about justice.
And there is little doubt that such proceedings would be in the public interest. Americans have shown that they take an interest in politics when given the opportunity. Millions of people listened to the Jan. 6 committee hearings, Trump’s first impeachment trial, and his second.
Nonetheless, Chief Justice John Roberts was undaunted when questioned about introducing cameras to the court in 2018.
“[W]A very discreet institution. I think the case hearing and adjudication process works very well. I think it would be detrimental, and worrying, to change something as dramatically as a lawsuit being televised,” Roberts explained.
Roberts describes the court as a “very prudent institution” given that the court’s conservative majority shattered decades of precedent to overturn last year’s Roe v. Wade ruling. It’s hard to understand what you did. It works well – a square with reality.
In fact, the exact opposite is true, at least as far as public perception is concerned. Trust in the Supreme Court is at a record low. According to Gallup, only four of his 10 Americans say they approve of how the Supreme Court handles its work. Almost six out of ten disagree with him.
Some of the current judges, including Roberts, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan, seemed open to the idea of the camera when they were candidates, but changed their minds once they took the bench. One Sonia Sotomayor suggested in a 2019 television interview that the introduction of cameras could encourage showboating at an institution that prides itself on being modest and polite. “Every decision we make is fully explained, fully defended, and fully explained. But we can’t do that and keep the show going,” Sotomayor said.
But no one asked for a show. The public deserves a chance to see court work, just as they can see meetings held by the local school board or city council. Considering the nine judges are appointed for life and have a huge impact on American life, it’s not a big deal.
Some legal experts agree with Sotomayor that the use of live cameras in courts could result in lawyers acting for the cameras or encourage protesters determined to disrupt court proceedings. They do not understand that judges (with the help of marshals and court officials, of course) can control their own proceedings. And frankly, when dysfunctional behavior occurs in court, the public should be able to see it and judge for themselves.
Any downside of the camera is outweighed by the immeasurable benefits of judicial openness. However, the High Court has not been contacted and is unwilling to reform. The only way to reach that result is through the legislative branch. The new Congress should mandate camera access in the High Court, the last attempted move in 2021 bipartisan legislation. This measure did not make progress in Congress.
In his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary, Roberts failed to address the controversy swirling in court. Among them was a leaked draft from last year before the official release of the Dobbs ruling. A 2014 New York Times report claiming Hobie’s lobbying opinion was leaked. Ginny Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, tried to get Republican officials to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.
With the High Court facing a serious legitimacy crisis, bringing transparency into the decision-making process is good for the public and the Court itself. Opening its deliberations to public scrutiny will only help this beleaguered institution.
[ad_2]
Source link
