Reason.tv: Why Have Cameras Been in Katie Couric’s Colon But Not The Supreme Court?
by Nick GillespieCameras are everywhere today: In convenience stores, at intersections, the workplace, your computer, your cellphone, ATM machines. There’s even been a camera in news anchor Katie Couric.
Yet there’s one place cameras have never been allowed: The U.S. Supreme Court. Just what are Supreme Court justices hiding beneath their robes that they continue to say no to cameras in their courtroom?
For decades the White House and Congress have opened their public business to television cameras, but the judicial branch has remained staunchly against the practice. As C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb tells Reason.tv, the justices have rebuffed every attempt to videotape the oral arguments phase of Supreme Court proceedings. 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.
Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have spoken in favor of cameras in the Supreme Court. Can a new batch of justices, more attune to the benefits of transparency, finally change things for the better?
“The Case for Cameras in The Supreme Court” is written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts.
Approximately 3.40 minutes.
Go to Reason.tv for iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
57 Comments
Why? Nobody would watch. Its like those NASA cameras on the space shuttle. A mother ship could pull up right next to the space shuttle and aliens could be stuffing mind control eggs down the astronaut's throats and it would all be televised but nobody would watch. Ok just kidding. Yes more transparency and the first thing the Justice League can do is rule that filming cops is NOT against the law.
Katie was more open to the idea?
I dunno the answer.
That was just a wild assed guess.
Perhaps, if I was to take a second guess, I'd say for ratings.
I don't think I can do any better than to quote a comment on the youtube page:
"Kagan and Sotomayor on camera violates the 8th Amendment protection against torture. "
Wouldn't that lead to the lawyers making arguments to the camera, and not to the supreme court judges? Wouldn't that make popular opinion a more important piece of supreme court decisions?
The supreme court often fails to do this, but their mandate is to IGNORE public opinion and FOLLOW the constitution.
(You know my blog, colonize on wordpress…)
I watch NASA TV…. *hides in shame*
Katie Couric's colon…Eeeewwww! NOT interested in watching that! The Supreme Court, however…it would be nice to see what goes on in the most private courtroom in the country…
Ok Dr. Zoidberg
That Katie Couric Colon Camera; was that a deal on Pay Per View?
Is it in re-runs, or syndication yet?
Sounds like quite the gas!
Yet there’s one place cameras have never been allowed: The U.S. Supreme Court. Just what are Supreme Court justices hiding beneath their robes that they continue to say no to cameras in their courtroom?
The liberal judges are afraid of the public seeing just how vapid and inane they really are.
I can't support the idea of live broadcasts of Supreme Court proceedings. Here is that branch of government which should be the LEAST affected by popular public opinion. Live broadcasts, especially during the most contentious cases would automatically cause the activist Justices and Lawyers to try to rally public sentiment on a partisan basis, rather than argue the merits of the case.
On the other side of the issue, I would support cameras in the Court if they were used only for recording proceedings for future Courts to reference past decisions. Anything beyond that would simply turn SCOTUS into a judicial American Idol competition.
Sounds pretty disgusting if ya ask me….
Bingo!!
This is a VERY BAD idea, instead of arguments being directed to the justices without distractions, attorneys will start playing to the "audience's emotions" instead of presenting proper case arguments.
Even if congress passes a law requiring cameras the 'supremes' should declare it an intrusion from the legislative and executive branches into their independent authority in violation of the separation of powers.
This is a terribly terrible horribly horrible idea.
NO!
You can find the best of Katy Couric's colon on youtube.
TERM LIMITS for the Supreme Court Justices to avoid Corruption. Turn over is a good thing in all official capcities! It prevents corruption and collusion.
Oh and we don't want KAGAN. We have enough socialists to deal with.
Off Topic: We don't want CARD CHECK Obama/Pelosi/Reid! Unions are no friend of The Constitution, or U.S!
well, i hate to be a spoilsport, but i think on some level the cameras need to be removed from not the house and senate, but thier hearings. most of what is done during hearings, is blowhards making statements for future re-election campaigns, and not being on topic, or even truthful. imaging if they could have borked bork, if no cameras were present? also listen to the justices, they don't want things said to be taken out of context. they do release audio tapes of hearings now. but they mention, more than 90 percent of what they do, more than 90 percent of people would not understand.
Televising the Supreme Court's activity would draw from both the mystery and majesty of the Court.
Just as televising Couric's colon was so wrong, so would be the televising of the Supreme Court. No stretch to imagine Sotomayor and Kagan playing to an audience when they should be giving serious consideration to the cases brought before the Court.
Did Katie's colonoscopy help find her head?
Katie Couric always knows what the inside of her colon looks like, because her head's always stuck up there!
Fact: During a hearing, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg fell asleep, embarrassingly with her head down. Many others judges, snooze. These phonies don't ever want you to ever see the truth.
Sorry Nick, have to disagree with you on this one. Cameras in the court room are for judge Judy, not the Supreme Court. If you think the court is politicized now, just wait until the cameras get there and some showboat justice decides give their learned opinion to all those folks watching out there.
Lets keep the Supreme court focused on the matters that come before the court and not on any justices antics to gain fans.
Not to mention that some justices will be inclined to start picking what cases they will hear depending on which would make a "better show."
P.S. : and I didn't look up Katie Couric’s Colon
Add Ruthie and you have perhaps the three UGLIEST human beings in public life. Funny how they're all liberals and all SCOTUS justices.
Katie Couric is 100% full of S%*^&t; the reason they used a colonoscope was to make said s^(&*t look as if it were legit.
TERM LIMITS!
Oh, and NO Kagan.
EXACTLY !!!
she lost an intern, they were wondering if they were hiding in there, hence the camera.
but i will bet katie hasn't seen obama's colon, if the rest of her pals in the media would get out of her way to let her stick her head in, and take a look see
** raises hand quietly** UUmmmm I watch it too….
Nick… do you realize that you are on the same side of this issue as Obama? Yes, Obama wants cameras in the Supreme Court too. Doesn't that give you pause that you are on the same side of an issue with Obama? I think, you need to re-think this.
Why do you think Obama wants them in there? Could it be because he knows that would open the door to demagoguery of the court? Yes, I think that could be it.
Do you remember what Obama did to the Supreme Court at the State of the Union Address — in front of the cameras?
My idea is, every general election, three new SCOTUS judges are appointed, and three exit in accordance to their seniority. Each set of three would serve no more than eight years, then automatically out! The same would apply to the appellate courts. District court judges would serve as feeders for the upper courts.
We'd get to see Ginsberg snoozing away through legal arguments prior to making a ruling.
I might be convinced to support audio recording, to be released 5 years or so after the case is heard – but never video.
Err….I can read the headlines now, "Cameras 'in camera'"! All joking aside, if this is allowed let's also require one in the Oval Office. In ten years we can watch re-runs of, 'How Not to Act as a President', starring Jug Ears.
As others above have said, this will merely lead to courtroom demogoguery and justices playing toward populism rather than constitutional interpretation.
I am responding to the blog title… That is a very good question!
We get sufficient information from the audio recordings, Mr. Gillespie. Adding video cameras will only foster the Lance Ito Effect, and we all remember what THAT led to!
You've GOT to be shitting me?
Pardon the pun.
Why the cameras in Katies Colon?
Because we couldn't understand why all the crap was coming out of her mouth.
.
Yup. Which is why two of the most liberal justices want it. At least in my view.
Thanks I needed that! You beat me to the punch.
Brilliant play on words, Cowboy.
Two Thumbs up!
Brilliant!
Bad enough we have justices that all they do on the bench is promote THEIR political philosophy,…………
and somehow we think it is a good idea to expand their stage,……………….
It's all clear now Katie,.you can go back to work,……….
what do mean you have nothing to say,…??????
Hell, the reality is they don't decide the cases on oral arguments anyway. That is all done by briefs and memos and probably arguments behind closed doors. I do agree that Sottomayor and Kagan will spend their time mugging for the camera.
Wait, a view up Katie's colon? Do we really want to see her head that close inside her ass?
I don't think so, Tim.
Thanks.
I love wordplay.
I wondered how long it would take before someone caught it.
You were the first one.
That's true. What's said in the courtroom matters not. It's what's written in the opinions that matter. And if its transparency you are seeking, I don't know how it could be anymore transparent. Anybody can download any of the court's decisions these days.
They discovered she suffers from a syndrome exclusive to talking heads:
Her head was so far up her ass it had actually popped back out between her shoulders.
Physicians, parapsycholgists, and conjurors at the Miskatonic Center for Non-Euclidean Biology continue to do cutting curve research on this esoteric and baroque condition.
WE,THE UNWILLING,LED BY THE UNQUALIFIED.
Isn,t that moron a Mexican monkey lover who hates white Americans.
That's fine. Then video tape the proceedings, but don't air them publicly until after the case is decided. This way people can see the process, but the proceedings will not be turned into a circus.
YEAH!!! Then we can edit them and spin them out of context to make Justice Thomas look like a member of the Black Panther Party who raped a pretty white girl in an ACORN office while chanting Obama's name.
Got to post it somewhere else though because that's been done too much at this site.
The reason, is that Katie's colon does not play to the camera for sympathy.
2 words: O.J. trial. That is why there are no cameras in there, and should never be. Their decisions are too important to be played out like a reality show.
IMO, Kelo vs. the City of New London was a massive conspiracy, involving the United States government and elements within the SCOTUS. I believe it was a deliberate setup, by the government to ease the mass confiscation of lands to build the proposed massive NAFTA super highway, that was to begin in Laredo, Texas, and finish North to the Canadian border, then tying into the trans-Canadian Highway . Why do I believe this? Because, the SCOTUS docket on Kelo show the government being obviously AWOL. Normally the USDOJ, or Solicitor General will enter a Constitutionally questioned case…however, this didn't happen in Kelo. No government briefs were filed, nor argument time requested.
The Kelo land that was lost in that Constitutionally usurped decision, is presently bare, and still not built on. And to add insult to injury to takeover by eminent domain, the good people of Texas fought and gave the project a huge thumbs down.
From The Office of OBAMA'S End of Life Czar:
D eciding
E lderly
A mericans
T otal
H ealthcare
I really enjoy going to the Supreme Court. I even joined the Supreme Court Bar just so I could get a good seat. With TV, everybody will be able to witness what I get to see.
Eminent legal minds stunned, stammering and mouth agape when asked a question they can't answer.
Lawyers falling asleep while waiting for their turn or on the verge of vomiting because of nerves.
Justice using lawyer as conduits for insulting another justice. "Mr. Attorney don't you mean to say that the arguments put forth by Justice Gingsberg show that she's nothing more than a harpy and should stop her cackling?"
Justices leave bench, going to the bathroom, snoring or scratching themselves.
Justices rolling their eyes and making snide gestures at each other.
Justices asking questions that bring a stunned silence because no one can imagine someone asking something that stupid.
Often it's the best show in Washington.
Who do these people work for? The people? If we want cameras, they don't get a choice. Enough of their pompous ass attitude. The level of corruption in the courts mandates it to protect the people from these criminals. Even in the chambers, on the internet, streamed live. NOW.
You must be logged in to post a comment.