Why is it so secretive?
We’ve got the House and Senate on C-Span daily, but the Supreme Court doesn’t allow any cameras. Access for reporters of any kind is extremely limited.
And, unlike members of Congress, the folks in the robes make no effort whatsoever to explain their decision-making processes, outside of the release of their decision itself.
And what would be gained by having the nine justices holding press conferences to explain their opinions?
The Supreme Court believes that it works best in private, making its decisions out of the public eye. This is supposed to ensure that the opinions are on the basis of the law and not on the basis of public opinion.
That’s not true however, but that’s the theory behind it.
I think you’ll find the theory is that courts, and most especially the higher courts, are not supposed to be subject to the ebb and flow of public opinion. They are supposed to be interpreting the laws, not pandering for the cameras. And sticking the whole thing on TV is considered undignified. This was also the case with Congress not that long ago–when Robert Byrd (D-WV) was Senate Majority Leader, he refused to permit televising Senate Debates. (I suppose we could debate whether the concepts of “dignity” and “Congress” have all that much to do with each other, but that’s probably a different thread.)
Also, the only thing that could really be shown would be the oral argument before the justices. This would be interesting to see, and it would show the justice’s questions to counsel, but it’s not the real decision-making process. (Watching video of justices circulating memoranda and draft opinions to each other would be about as much fun as watching paint dry.)
Incidentally, the Supremes do explain many of their decisions, at least in a legal sense–there is frequently an opinion issued with the disposition of the case, which goes into why the decision was what it was. Granted these opinions are not usually such that they lend themselves to easy interpretation by the general public, or even say what they really mean in a practical sense. (Harry Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade, for instance, was presented more as being about the right of doctors to decide what constituted proper medical treatment than anything else. As I recall, one of the comments about that case was that Blackmun had managed to write the woman in question out of the opinion completely.)
infromation about supreme court dicisions is widely available. check the library. some of the stuff is very interesting.
I’m aware that their rulings are made public. I think it would be interesting to hear lawyers’ presentations before the court, and the questions the justices ask.
Doesn’t seem to me that that would shake the foundations of American jurisprudence.
Congressmen feel the need to play to their audience; the voters back home. Justices are appointed for life and so presumedly don’t care what the general public thinks of their performance.
Are the proceedings kept secret? I know they’re not televised but is the public (and/or the press) excluded? Are the court records, with the arguments made by the various sides, not available? If you were being represented wouldn’t you have a right to know what went on?
I don’t have any real knowledge but my guess is that interested parties can obtain records of the proceedings. Typically all that is made generally available is the rulings and the justices’ opinions but usually that’s all anyone cares about. If you have a reason to know more I would think you could.
Maybe they close the proceedings until the case is decided to remove distractions from the justices, but I can’t believe they remain secret afterward.
Does anybody here really know? I’d be interested to get the straight dope.
“Proceedings” before the Supreme Court are not secret. The public can come in and watch any of the oral arguments by the lawyers, and can go and review the briefs that the parties have filed by going to the Clerk’s Office in the court. I’ve done it myself. The briefs are public records and are available to the public for free (to review, copies are charged per page) unless the file is up in the judge’s office, in which case a decision is in the works.
If you’re interested (and have access to it), the briefs and transcripts of recent oral arguments are available on legal databases LEXIS and Westlaw. Some websites also have some of this-- Cornell Law School has a website that focuses on the Supreme Court in quite a bit of detail.
As for explaining the decision, the court is careful to address only the issues before it, and spends a lot of time working on a decision that speaks for itself. It will usually explain why one side’s arguments were accepted and the other side’s rejected. Questions about what the decision means are usually questions that go beyond the scope of the issue presented, and a fundamental policy of the court is that it only addresses concrete issues.
Thanks Nurl.
I don’t see why the proceedings can’t be televised - the Supreme Court of Canada routinely shows its proceedings on the Canadian Parliamentary channel (CPAC) on Sunday mornings. But don’t expect drama…