Tulsa World: Will Sotomayor agree?

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Wednesday, February 10, 2010 | WIRELESS

Home > Opinion > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Will Sotomayor agree?
Time for cameras in the nation's Supreme Court

By JULIE DELCOUR Associate Editor
Published: 7/12/2009 2:29 AM
Last Modified: 7/12/2009 4:19 AM

Next week, on live television, Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be grilled six ways from Sunday by Senate Judiciary Committee members attempting to determine what kind of Supreme Court justice she would make.

Enjoy the moment because if Sotomayor is eventually confirmed by the Senate, the public may never actually see her doing her job as a member of this nation's highest court. As matters stand, cameras are not permitted at the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor will be asked to share her views on that subject. That won't be the first thing asked; she will be pressed first on hot-button issues — her stands on abortion, workplace discrimination and gun rights, and what exactly she meant with the "wise Latina" remark.

But at some point Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., who in 2006 and 2007 sponsored legislation to require the court to televise arguments, will raise the issue. In a June 15 letter to Sotomayor he said: "In an electronic era where the public obtains much, if not most, of its news and information from television, there is a strong case in my judgment that the Supreme Court should have its public proceedings televised just as the House of Representatives and the Senate are televised."

The answer by Sotomayor — who sits on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allow televised hearings — may be more positive than that of the man whose seat she is seeking to fill.

In 1996, Justice David Souter famously told a congressional committee that, "The day you see a camera come into our courtroom it's going to roll over my dead body."

C-SPAN founding father Brian Lamb sees Souter's departure as a chance — albeit small — for the court to join the electronic age and for justices finally to demystify the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were not openly hostile to the idea when asked about it at their confirmation hearings. Roberts, who as chief judge is first among equals on such a decision, said he had "no set view." Alito recalled that when he was on the 3rd Circuit appeals court, its judges "had a debate about whether we would or should allow television cameras in our courtroom. I argued that we should."

In 1990, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "I would not object, just for myself." But she hastened to add she would not force it on her colleagues.

Justice Stephen Breyer four years ago admitted he was conflicted. "On the one hand, of course, it would help people see how in some of these difficult issues we struggle with them. " On the other hand, Breyer continued, "would they (the public) know that this is 2 percent of the matter, what they're seeing, and would they, in fact, understand that most of what we do does not involve the two people in front of us, the lawyers on either side? It involves the 300 million people who are not there physically in the courtroom."

It's a legitimate question and there's a way to find out.

Longtime Supreme Court observer Tony Mauro recently opined in USA Today that "broadcasting proceedings would be a surefire, almost no-brainer way of increasing awareness of the judicial branch. The Internet Age demands transparency from all institutions at all times. Any government body that lags behind is in danger of losing legitimacy, relevance and, at the very least, public awareness."

Televising sessions isn't embraced by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy or John Paul Stevens who all questions if it would change session dynamics and how justices and attorneys behave.

Scalia has been outspoken in his opposition to televising sessions. "Not a chance, because we don't want to become entertainment." Scalia said. ... "I don't want it to become show biz."

Fat chance.

Much of what's argued before the court isn't Brown v. Board of Education, Gore v. Bush or Roe v. Wade — it is arcane and dry material, subjects only a lawyer could love, not show tunes. More recently, Scalia said he thought "there's something sick about making entertainment out of other people's legal problems."

For years, C-SPAN, which airs 24-hour coverage of other branches of government, has led the charge to have high court hearings televised. The door has remained tightly latched. C-SPAN is allowed to air delayed audio recordings in certain cases.

In April, at an Appropriations Committee hearing, Justices Thomas and Breyer received a lecture — that sounded a little like Ronald Reagan challenging Mikhail Gorbachev — from Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas. "I'd encourage you to break down the walls. It's as easy as pushing this button. When you get that Web site up and running, broadcast those oral arguments and let the people see what wonderful work that you do. I think you would strengthen the republic."

Thomas replied that the court was reluctant to change rules without knowing the effect. "There is constant discussion about that," he said. "But there is some disagreement."

You think?

On Friday, C-SPAN released a poll it commissioned on "What Americans Know About the Supreme Court and Judge Sotomayor." The last question asked about televising hearings. Had justices been among the 1,002 U.S. voters polled — and had they disagreed sessions should be televised — they would have found themselves in the minority. Only about half of respondents knew how many justices are on the court or could recall any of them by name or who Sotomayor was. But 61 percent said they agreed sessions should be televised.

Julie DelCour, 581-8379
julie.delcour@tulsaworld.com By JULIE DELCOUR Associate Editor

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

5 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

	Report Comment my view, Sand Springs (7/12/2009 7:16:33 AM) If she's confirmed? Who are you kidding there is no way of stopping it.
	Report Comment Thunder196, Tulsa (7/12/2009 3:32:40 PM) She will be grilled? Surely you jest!
	Report Comment Bedazzled, (7/12/2009 6:05:01 PM) She has the job.
	Report Comment Barleybaby, Tulsa (7/12/2009 8:53:02 PM) Elections have consequences, she should have her hearings and receive an up or down vote.
	Report Comment :), (7/15/2009 8:23:13 AM) righton, Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent but was born in the Bronx.

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.

Post Your Comment

Mike Strain OU's Bradford moves up on Kiper's big board	Dave Sittler Football recruiting's endless, but offering a 7th-grader?
John Klein Recruiting Super Quarterbacks	The Picker Spoil Sports? Spoiled Sports?
Jimmie Tramel On the other hand.....