TV in the Federal Courts

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I was watching C-SPAN the other night, and there was some kind of senate judiciary comittee type meeting about whether or not TV coverage should be allowed to be broadcast from federal courts. I thought it was interesting; on the one hand, shows like Judge Judy and and Texas Justice make me cringe; it's the justice system being... I'll say....influenced (potetntially) by ratings and money. It's easy to tell that the judges go over the top for ratings. Hell, Judge Judy makes millions more per year than Supreme Court Justices. On the other hand, I think that stations like Court TV do a good job at making the judicial system both more transparent, by showing us what goes on inside, and more accesible in terms of learning about the system. In the end, I don't think that the camera's ultimately affect decision making, and, with the rules they have in place now, I am ok with it. Your thoughts?

 

[Phlegmak]

TV broadcasts from federal courts would not be GoodEnoughForMe.

 

[skadistic]

I don't think any court should be televised but all court should be recorded in audio and video.

 

[The Yankee]

Ostensibly, you could have the televised proceedings on a C-SPAN station, negating any effect of ratings or judges playing characters.

I see no reason to not see it from, say, the Supreme Court or the district courts. After all, you'll get transcripts, audio, etc. very soon after the fact as it is. The only times it would have to be of a concern would be if one (or both) of the parties want to protect themselves from a threat by not allowing images to be sent over the airwaves.

All that said, given how quickly we can get recordings out, the argument feels almost moot to me.

 

[Japanrocks12]

The poll is a bit awkwardly worded. Whether or not I believe that these programs exist, they do. I don't necessarily like the idea, if that's what you mean.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The poll is a bit awkwardly worded. Whether or not I believe that these programs exist, they do. I don't necessarily like the idea, if that's what you mean.

Sorry. I am basically asking if you believe that TV broadcasts are acceptable/should be allowed/fine in federal courts.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I'm against TV in courts; courtroom sketch artists would be out of work!

 

[downtown]

We already have audio of oral arguments for the SOCUS. The Cornell Law school website has them I think.

 

[Dida]

Scalia said the only way a camera can roll in his chamber is over his dead body.

 

[downtown]

Scalia has said lots of things.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

If all they were talking was Federal Courts, then Judge Judy wouldn't be in all that much trouble. Judge Judy is an arbitrator, not an actual judge.

I watched courtTV a year ago, and I always noticed the CourtTV commentators mentioning how the lawyers were 'acting' more than usual in order to impress the lawfirms that might or might not be watching. Maybe the camera does influence the way the courts operate on those days?

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm for it. Most of the lamestream media reporting on court cases is very misleading about what the actual issues are, especially with Supreme Court cases. Most of the lawyers with their own shows like Greta Van Sustern, Dan Abrams, and Nancy disGrace are just flat out wrong a lot of the time and leading their audience down the wrong path most of the rest of the time. I think a showing of what is actually going on in the courtroom might expose the real issues to some people, although the type of people that could follow a Supreme Court argument may be the same people that already see through the shallowness of most lamestream media reporting.

People just may question what we are paying Justice Thomas for when he goes an entire year without asking a single question from the bench.