Why doesn’t the Supreme Court allow for any electronic devices into the court room?
The most oft-stated reason from the Court is that they don’t want a circus in their courtroom. Given the silliness that usually attends televised courtroom proceedings, I can’t blame them.
Justice Breyer, who was on the New Hampshire Supreme Court prior to becoming a USSC justice, says he found himself thinking about how his questions would play out on the evening news in that state, as the New Hampshire SC’s procedings are televised. He is a VERY vocal opponent of the idea, and he’s a liberal.
Interesting…moments ago, I finished watching what appeared to be a live argument before the Supreme Court (election stuff, don’tcha know) on MSNBC. There was no video, only audio, but there were running captions, and the station highlighted the justice asking the questions of the attorneys.
It appears they do allow broadcast of their microphones, at the least.
The Supremes, in an unprecedented move, allowed the audio to be released after the end of the arguments today. There have always been audio records made of the Supreme Court proceedings, but they usually don’t release them until the session has ended for the year, and then only by special request.
It’s interesting that the Supreme Court was the court that decided that other courtrooms must allow cameras but they constantly exempt their own private domain.
It should also be noted that it’s not just electronic devices. Except for specially licensed members of the press, nobody is allowed to take even pencil notes. They actually confiscate your writing instruments if you try.
Land of the Free, eh?
Hm, I think that came off unclear. There was an onscreen graphic with still photos of each justice and the speaking attorney. They highlighed the speaking justice’s photo.
Comical robes, pompous attitude, pretense at objectivity, this isn’t already a circus? They’re probably not even self-deluded, but you never know. The message of their objectivity and how they transcend politics is always given out when what they should say is just that they generally stop further litigation. This is the only good thing about the S.C. unless you are the one they decided against.
I thought Breyer was from Massachusetts and Souter was from New Hampshire.
I suppose the Supreme Court can set whatever rules it wants because its the SUPREME COURT.
There are restrictions on people taking notes, but reporters do get to take notes and audio recordings of oral arguments are available to the public. Usually they aren’t available until after the term is over, but the Court made an exception for this case.
You can’t take notes in the public galleries of Congress either. You also can’t wear a hat (except for religious purposes) or read anything, even if nothing is going on.
I’ve also read accounts that Chief Justice Rehnquist doesn’t like reporters who keep their press credentials (which are laminated) visible when they are seated during arguments because he doesn’t like the reflections off of them.
I don’t see why we need to get too worked up over not being able to see oral arguments live on TV. The most interesting discussions, the ones between the justices themselves, are never revealed.
Ah, yes, every criminal suspect who has been read his rights following the Miranda decision has not been affected in any way by their decision. No one has been affected in any way by Brown v. Board of Education besides Brown and the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education. Sure.
What drivel.
Sorry, Bob, you’re right, I meant Souter, not Breyer. I have trouble keeping the libs apart. 
Heh. Don’t worry about it, DS. The Dow Jones News Service did exactly the same thing this afternoon.
:laughing out loud: That’s GREAT, manny, now I’m no better than the Dow Jones News Service!!!