Justices Kennedy & Breyer on Cameras in the Supreme Court

No video

Justices Kennedy & Breyer on Cameras in the Supreme Court

Рет қаралды 31,746

Күн бұрын

Justices Anthony Kennedy & Stephen Breyer discuss having television cameras in the Supreme Court. They do so in response to a question from Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL). Watch the complete hearing here: www.c-spanvideo...

Пікірлер: 50

@nrodaf06 10 жыл бұрын

There's a great video on KZfaq (Scalia on Cameras in Supreme Court; it's about 3 minutes long) that really explains why there shouldn't be cameras in the court. Proponents say it's to educate the people, but what they really want are those 10-15 second clips to attach to their "news reports" to either condone/condemn their arguments. Basically to "politicize" it, which is what people already say is wrong about the Justice appointments.

@Spudst3r 6 жыл бұрын

Bullshit. Canada has been televising their court for 20+ years, throughout a course of extremely controversial decisions. It's never been used for making sensational clips or undermining the court, but it does give those who really care full access to see how decisions were argued.

@unknownunknowns 6 жыл бұрын

kenektik Maybe Canadians are different from Americans. Americans tend to be impulsive, self gratifying, self centered, etc. The reason for not putting cameras there is due to the OJ trial where it became a circus, like “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Then the other reason is because the justices will end beating around the bush instead of being direct in their questioning. They’ll act like Congressional politicians. Anyway, there is access to the institution through audio and reading the transcripts. I think Americans need to listen and read more because they do have a short attention span.

@keepidahogreat5687 4 жыл бұрын

@@Spudst3r USA is extremely Hedonist, shallow, greedy. We don't inform. We make money. Which ruined ethics. Media has not ethics. All about what sells here in USA. Totally different culture then your polite Canadian culture.

@keepidahogreat5687 4 жыл бұрын

@Kevin Tober where?

@christianvelazquezKingz 3 жыл бұрын

@@Spudst3r Brazil televised it and its a circus. Every country is different

@ngedenkiondalle216 4 жыл бұрын

I just think you guys want to give the media another source of soundbites and nonsense. I say no cameras. Not even a microchip

@jakemasters2674 3 жыл бұрын

Exactly

@DonaldCowling-fw5vg Жыл бұрын

Too old for office

@eMenak 10 жыл бұрын

6:04 - Person entering room: "Oh sh*t..."

@greekphilosophy 2 жыл бұрын

Cameras were welcomed in government proceedings, and the proceedings have become a circus. Leave the cameras OUT of the court!

@bluedemon218 5 жыл бұрын

I think American politics/history is the most fascinating & interesting in history since Ancient Greece

@LPrice-le6ng 10 жыл бұрын

70% of communicsation is non verbal...The reason used in courts is unique to the legal system...More important than video in the court is to have a program with several off screen voices discribing the legal background of what is going on.

@bailord8249 6 жыл бұрын

Someone tell me why we can't do it, but delay the release 30, 50 or 100 years? And therefore only make it available long, long after it could be used for skewing public perception of an issue?

@garymclaughin 2 жыл бұрын

Ok I will weigh in with the upmost of respect. Why would one have to go to Oxford to have a debate? Bless you.

@MrOoglebog 3 жыл бұрын

I think they should still film them for historical purposes. Maybe only release them after a time.

@towsonbestorthodontists3013 9 жыл бұрын

Great to see this information open to the pubic great video. Bravo!

@cald1421 2 жыл бұрын

Kennedy completely missed the mark. He thought by being the swing voter he’d have a legacy-be remembered. But no. That bought him ephemeral fame. It made him relevant for a stint of time while he sat on the bench. But now years later, who remembers Justice Kennedy? Other than to mock his flowery language about the heart of liberty in _Casey_ Compared to the likes of Scalia and RBG, true titans-Kennedy’s vacillations on the Court and attempts to be a philosopher judge are just laughable. At least he understood he’ll be judged for what he writes and his reasoning. Wish he remembered that when he penned that awful opinion in _Casey_

@bluedemon218 5 жыл бұрын

That would be so wrong bcuz the American people would think decisions are politically made. I will admit I hope, if Trump gets another Justice I hope we can get another Holmes Jr. Or Warren

@garymclaughin 2 жыл бұрын

What's new . For some reason they like single men retired easy pickings for the young at border services. Now there is a realty show as well. Thanks for taking care of the elders. All good in Chiang Rai.👍

@XOTheCrystalStarrOX 11 жыл бұрын

To not have cameras would be to discriminate against American citizens who have hearing impairments like deafness, in which most of their understanding of communication comes from visually seeing reactions and body language of people when they speak. The constitution of the U.S.A. declares "all men are created equal," therefore cameras need to be present in the Supreme Court so as to equal the playing field in the understanding of what's actually being communicated.

@vikramvalame9990 4 жыл бұрын

Transcripts are made, for deaf people

@wertiaaudit5746 2 жыл бұрын

It also picks up on body language and implied threats

@DissentOrConcur 2 жыл бұрын

NO to cameras. The media is full of snakes.

@Sarah-vr7yh Жыл бұрын

Psalm 110.

@cald1421 2 жыл бұрын

The oral arguments are recorded and when I hear Justice Sotomayor asking about the Court’s legitimacy I already have that insidious feeling questions are being asked to make political points and not actually solve the case

@wertiaaudit5746 2 жыл бұрын

You need court cams because you need to be able to pick up on body language and the fact that the supreme court was like if I look dumb no cameras but if I look good,camera are good.

@ayo_papo 10 жыл бұрын

Why wont you guys investigate mlm-multi level marketing companies????

@rokehdokey34 8 жыл бұрын

+Elis Fraguada They can't hear you. Add more question marks.

@wertiaaudit5746 2 жыл бұрын

Because it's legal , no?

@dnno1 10 жыл бұрын

Justice Kenedy says that they, the Supreme Court of the United States, teaches by what they write and they write opinions, which doesnt necssarily have to be correct. What normal person is going to want to learn someone's opinion? If I am going to learn something I want it to be the facts.

@Law9652 9 жыл бұрын

dnno1 I think it more likely that you want a condensed and egregiously over-simplified argument. Well, guess what, that won't help. You actually need to read a 130-page judgment in order to understand that judgment.

@christianvelazquezKingz 3 жыл бұрын

@@Law9652 yup

@vahbeach 9 жыл бұрын

LOL it's 2014 we should've had 3D capabilities in the courtroom by now.

@sadatmousa8419 10 жыл бұрын

If those judges want to communicate with the public they will put cameras in every single courtroom in the country. this is how we stop corruption and build a better future.

@Longhorn_Legend 6 жыл бұрын

Bullshit. Oral argument audio is available to EVERYONE

@Spudst3r 6 жыл бұрын

Cameras are almost non-existent in courtrooms in Canada, but the Supreme Court of Canada is televised, and nobody in Canada thinks it's a problem.