« Ind. Decisions - Interesting order issued in appeal pending opinion | Main | Environment - "Without Superfund Tax, Stimulus Aids Cleanups" »

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Courts - "Pushing the Supreme Court Toward Transparency"

The Blog of Legal Times had an interesting entry last week, reported by Tony Mauro, on happenings at the "annual House hearing called to consider the Supreme Court's budget request." Things started normally, according to the entry, but then:

But then a Texas congressman decided to test just how well the justices were listening and whether they would take his heartfelt message to heart -- a strong plea to the Court to ramp up its transparency and public face. Other committee members proceeded to pile on, telling the Court that the momentum toward openness that the Internet has created is so strong that the Court would be wise not to resist it. By the end of it Breyer and Thomas could have been forgiven if they started to think they'd been hit by a coordinated attack from wild-eyed techies.

The provocateur was conservative Rep. John Culberson, (R-Tex.) He started on the wrong foot when, in the course of extolling the power of the Court, he said, "Any five justices, in effect, can amend the Constitution." To which Thomas replied, "I hope not, my goodness." Breyer said calmly, "We interpret the Constitution," rather than amending it. "We don't see ourselves as amending the Constitution."

Seemingly energized, Culberson moved on to his main point, urging the Court to go to the next level of transparency. The justices had already talked about the occasional release of oral argument audiotapes, and of plans for an improved website. Culberson said there would be "no logical distinction" between what the Court has already done, and streaming the video of oral argument on the Court's web site Suddenly, dressed in high-tech clothes, the old debate over cameras in the Supreme Court had been resurrected. * * *

"The next American revolution is going to come through the Internet," Culberson told the justices. "I encourage you to break down that wall. It's as easy as pushing this button."

Serrano chimed in, also urging the Court to follow the trend and be more transparent. "That train has left the station," Serrano said, urging the Court to allow cameras in, "to keep the people informed."

The justices retreated into their usual arguments against camera access. As he often does, Breyer said the current members of the Court are just temporary stewards of a cherished institution who don't want to damage it in anyway. Before deciding if the gains are worth the risk, Breyer said "social science research" is needed. Later, Culberson implored Breyer and Thomas, "Don't wait for the social science research. Trust your hearts." * * *

Will today's impassioned display of pro-cameras sentiment in Congress make a difference? Thomas had said that the appropriations committee's views had spurred Supreme Court action on improving technology over the years. Thomas and Breyer must have left the hearing feeling the momentum on cameras coming from Congress and from technology was heading strongly toward openness. If the Court eventually, finally, says yes sometime in this century, today's hearing of the financial services and general government subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will have played a significant part.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 26, 2009 05:19 PM
Posted to Courts in general