Sen. Arlen Specter is pushing for a law to allow cameras at the Supreme Court's oral-arguments sessions, and both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have spoken in favor of telvising court proceedings. Some say this means "momentum is building" for an end the the court's camera ban, but that may be overly optimistic:
On this, an often-divided court remains unanimous, even if the arguments offered up Justices Scalia, Breyer, Thomas, Kennedy, and others remain even weaker than the majority's logic in their awful Kelo decision, which legitimated eminent domain abuse.
Sample objection by Justice Kennedy: "Cameras would change our collegial dynanmic." Oooh, poor pabies. Nine unelected people who serve for life can make rulings that change our lives drastically and forever in whatever arbitrary and capricious manner they choose, and we're supposed to care about their "collegial dynamic"? I for one would like to watch this particular saugage making in operation.
Comments
Shocker- I agree with Leo!
I think it would be quite interesting to watch the Supreme Court in action.
This trend towards openness in government is alarming. What's next, an audit of the Federal Reserve? How on earth do you expect the government to manipulate us if it's forced to show it's hands at all times?
Heck, we may as well go ahead and eliminate the Electoral College too, since we're in the process of destroying the republic anyway!
Arguments Against:
1) I'd miss those awful courtroom illustrations.
2) Those justices are nothing to look at, i(f you know what I mean)
3) With the cameras on them, the justices would start to degenerate into reality show behavior, and doing snarky little asides to the camera in their chambers about the other justices.