Skip to main content

Home/ ENG 102 Convergence: Spring '14 (14909)/ Contents contributed and discussions participated by Lindsey Venetos

Contents contributed and discussions participated by Lindsey Venetos

Lindsey Venetos

Why Aren't Cameras Allowed at the Supreme Court Again? - The Wire - 0 views

  • Then, in 1999, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley introduced legislation that would have allowed cameras into Supreme Court proceedings. As a response, the Court began to release audio of oral arguments, but only after arguments concluded. To state the obvious, the Supreme Court last year makes history on a regular basis, whether by ending racial segregation in schools or legalizing both interracial marriage and abortion. In 2000, the Supreme Court essentially picked the President. The Constitution gives a tremendous amount of power to grant a group of nine judges who aren't elected and are given lifetime appointments. Adding a little more transparency into the mix certainly wouldn't hurt anyone.
  • It is Supreme Court Justices themselves who have been the most vocal opponents of allowing cameras into their courtroom. However, there are several members of the current Court who have expressed either a desire to allow cameras in the proceedings or at least some interest in entertaining the idea. C-SPAN has compiled a conclusive list of instances where justices have spoken either for or against cameras in the courtroom. Going by their past statements, the Court is currently split 4-3 towards not allowing cameras, but those two undecided votes could swing the majority in favor of allowing them.
  •  
    Great history I found. This bit of history was what I was missing in my paper for the first paragraph
Lindsey Venetos

The Third Branch - 0 views

    • Lindsey Venetos
       
      great government respurce
  •  
    Had no idea there have been so many proposed bills about television in cameras
Lindsey Venetos

Opposing Viewpoints in Context - Document - 0 views

    • Lindsey Venetos
       
      Great Compromise to both issues. Great middle ground
Lindsey Venetos

Opposing Viewpoints in Context - Document - 0 views

    • Lindsey Venetos
       
      not long enough but good
Lindsey Venetos

Opposing Viewpoints in Context - Document - 0 views

    • Lindsey Venetos
       
      one of my primary sources
  • to a Group-------------------ENG 102 Convergence: Spring '14 (14909)(shared)-------------------Create a Group... Share my existing annotations
  • If passed, Senate bill S. 344 would require U.S. Supreme Court proceedings to be televised except in cases where it is deemed harmful.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • This legislation would increase the public's awareness and understanding of how the nation's highest court works
  • It decides by 5-to-4 decisions so many vital cases, including partial-birth or late-term abortion, deciding who will live. It decides the question of who will be elected, controlling the constitutional decision on campaign contributions. It decides the constitutionality—
  • The Supreme Court of the United States, again in a series of 5-to-4 decisions, has decided what is the power of Congress, declaring in U.S. v. Morrison [2000] the legislation to protect women against violence unconstitutional because the Court questioned our "method of reasoning," raising a fundamental question as to where is the superiority of the Court's method of reasoning over that of the Congress. But that kind of decision, simply stated, is not understood.
  • Justice Stevens has been quoted recently stating his favorable disposition to televising the Supreme Court. Justice Breyer, during his confirmation hearings in 1994, indicated support for televising Supreme Court proceedings. He has since equivocated, but has also noted that it would be a wonderful teaching device. In a December 13, 2006, article by David Pereira, Justice Scalia said he favored cameras in the Supreme Court to show the public that a majority of the caseload involves dull stuff. In December of 2000, an article by Marjorie Cohn noted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's support of camera coverage, so long as it is gavel to gavel—which can be arranged.
Lindsey Venetos

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encycl... - 0 views

    • Lindsey Venetos
       
      best definition i could find
Lindsey Venetos

the Courtroom Camera Debate legal definition of the Courtroom Camera Debate. the Courtr... - 0 views

  • In 1934, nearly 700 reporters and photographers descended on the New Jersey town where Bruno Hauptmann was on trial for Kidnapping and murdering the baby of famous aviator Charles A. Lindbergh and author Anne Morrow Lindbergh. The trial judge allowed still photography, but was unprepared for the barrage of flashbulbs and the presence of a newsreel camera that was smuggled inside the court. Decrying the media circus that resulted, the ABA in 1937 called for prohibiting photography in its Canons of Professional and Judicial Ethics. At the same time the U.S. Congress amended the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to ban cameras and any form of broadcasting from federal courts. All but two states—Texas and Colorado—gradually adopted the ABA ban. Later, Texas permitted television cameras and it was a Texas criminal case that led to the next stage of development in this area of U.S. law.
    • Lindsey Venetos
       
      History of cameras in the court room. I paraphrased this info
1 - 11 of 11
Showing 20 items per page