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.
Contents contributed and discussions participated by Lindsey Venetos
Why Aren't Cameras Allowed at the Supreme Court Again? - The Wire - 0 views
-
-
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.
The Third Branch - 0 views
Opposing Viewpoints in Context - Document - 0 views
Opposing Viewpoints in Context - Document - 0 views
Opposing Viewpoints in Context - Document - 0 views
Opposing Viewpoints in Context - Document - 0 views
-
-
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...
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.
1 - 11 of 11
Showing 20▼ items per page