SCOTUS Justices Kennedy & Thomas Balk At Cameras... Support Pay Raise... What A Surprise!

Supreme Court Pushes Back on Televised Proceedings: Annual budget hearing turns into a platform for Justices Kennedy and Thomas to vent about congressional action

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pushed back strongly Tuesday against a bill pending in the Senate that would require the Court to televise its proceedings.

"Mandating direct televised proceedings would be inconsistent with the deference and etiquette that should apply between the branches," Kennedy said in response to questions from House members at the Court's annual budget hearing Tuesday. "We feel very strongly that this matter should be left to the courts."

I fail to see any foundation for Kennedy's claims. C-SPAN regulary broadcasts the proceedings of the snate and house proceedings, as well as the committees and hearings of each house of our congress. In principle, all of the government's operations, except when there is a clearly compelling need for secrecy that can be proven as a matter of fact or law. What is Kennedy afraid of... that we might actually see how the Court works?

Why not compromise and allow the recording of the proceddings with an embargo on releasing the video recoding for 30 days for most cases and up to five years in cases where confidentiality or secrecy is needed?

The camera issue was raised early on by subcommittee chairman Joseph Knollenberg, R-Mich., who said the recent confirmation hearings for two new justices had "brought about greater interest" in the Court on the part of the public.

We should welcome the increased interest in the proceedings that reach our highest court... and that court should set an example for all courts regarding how things are done in the court setting... and we should all be allowed to see the court in action. But that would also expose the court to scrutiny regarding its members inconsistencies and their respective versions of judicial activism, especially activism on the part of the Republican, conservative and ultra-conservative members of the Court.

Kennedy at first deferred to Thomas, describing him as a "media star," apparently a reference to Thomas' greater visibility dating back to his stormy confirmation hearings in 1991. Thomas acknowledged, without pleasure, that he is probably the most recognized justice on the Court. On the issue of cameras in the Court, Thomas said it "runs the risk of undermining the manner in which we consider cases." He also said cameras would reduce the justices' cherished anonymity, leading to the need for more security. Cautiously, Thomas added that requiring the Court to allow cameras could prompt "some conflict between the branches.”

Justice Thomas is the media star because he should not be sitting on the bench... any bench. His culpability in the Anita Hill situation was never cleared up and he was, at least, guilty of sexual harassment, if not sexual assault. I hope he has the decency to recuse himself in the upcoming matters of pornography.

But Thomas is no longer the "media star." It appears that Justice Scalia, with his outrageous commentaries and obscene gestures, is getting most of the media attention these days.

As for the issue of undermining the manner in which they hear and consider cases, that is the most bogus statement coming from a SCOTUS justice. The arguments made before the court are often released as transcripts and/or audio recordings. The effect of having televised or video-recorded proceedings would be no different. As for the so-called "cherished anonymity," this, too, is a bogus statement. All of the SCOTUS members have a biography on the SCOTUS web site. Anyone wityh $100 to spare could find out where they live. And if Justice Thomas really valued his "anonymity," he would not agree to so many lectures, public appearances and seminars where lucrative favors, travel arrangments and $700-plus leather jackets were all provided by the event sponsors.

That teed up the issue for Kennedy, who spoke much more forcefully against the proposal, often using the pronoun "we" to suggest that at least by his own measure of the situation, he was speaking for the full Court.

Kennedy took aim at Senate legislation sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., which would require broadcast access unless a majority of justices in an individual case decided that a party's due process rights would be violated. The bill was endorsed by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Specter's legislation seems like a reasonable approach to me...

The Supreme Court, Kennedy said, does not tell Congress how it should conduct its proceedings, so likewise, Congress should not be doing the same to the Court. "We feel very strongly that we have an intimate knowledge of the dynamics and needs of the Court," said Kennedy. "By having no cameras, we teach that our Court has a different dynamic."

Gee... one would think that a SCOTUS Justice would understand that there are certain things about the Courts that our Congress gets to dictate...

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Article III: Section 1 - Constitution of the United States of America

The Congress shall have power.... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Article I: Section 8 - Constitution of the United States of America

But having televised sessions would not really cross the line of separation of powers and branches... another bogus argument...

Seems to me that Kennedy and Thomas were just having a bit of a hissy-fit.

Kennedy seemed less vociferous about a separate bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, legislation that would permit, but not require, camera access in all federal courts at the discretion of the chief judge or justice. He indicated that bill, if passed, would pose far fewer separation of power issues, serving mainly as a signal from Congress that the judiciary should rethink its opposition to cameras.

When Olver said, "You might get called tone deaf if you don't move somehow toward some openness and transparency," Kennedy was conciliatory. "The 'tone deaf' phrase is apt," he said.

At least Kennedy saw some room for compromise... But why the flexibility? If the argument is that cameras (and video is accomplished using a camera) are bad under one version of the law, why are they okay under another? Seems to me that this Republican Justice is flip-flopping.

Kennedy also spoke out forcefully in favor of a pay raise for federal judges, warning that the failure by Congress to pass salary increases is "assuming the proportions of an historic wrong."

Excuse me? What historic wrongs are we talking about? Is the pay raise for federal judges somehow connected to issues such as slavery, racism, civil rights, liberty, justice or privacy? How did the pay of a judge/justice rise to such proportions?

Every spring, justices go before a House Appropriations subcommittee seeking approval for the Court's annual budget, which next year will total $76.4 million if passed. It is a rare and often illuminating encounter between branches, with House members asking pointed questions that put justices on the spot about a range of issues.

Yes, and it is often televised! Funny, it doesn't seem to undermine the judiciary.

But Kennedy's passion was aroused again later in the hearing when he was asked about the salary issue, a sore point for the judiciary for decades. Current pay for the chief justice is $212,100, while associate justices are paid $203,000. The salary for appeals court judges is $175,100, with $165,200 for district judges. Congress has traditionally pegged the judicial salary structure to the pay for senators and House members, which is $165,200, the same as district judges. Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Ca., and Judy Biggert, R-Ill., co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch, introduced a bill last week to de-link judicial and legislative salaries.

I know people that would suck feces through a straw for that kind of money. Who are we kidding? That kind of salary is ample.

"In my view the present status of judges' salaries threatens the quality of the judiciary," said Kennedy, noting that when his law clerks leave his chambers, some are hired by law firms with hiring bonuses equal to his salary. "This devalues the position of the judiciary."

Kennedy said it is no longer the case, as it was decades ago, that the best lawyers in a given community aspire to the federal bench. "It doesn't happen anymore," Kennedy said, adding that the salary situation has led to a "serious erosion in the morale of the judges."

Well, seeing how most candidates for the judiciary are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, I think that the justices of the SCOTUS ought to let the other two branches of our government handle those concerns... after all, that is written into the Constitution. By the way, if what Justice Kennedy had to say was in any way accurate, did we get screwed when Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed? I feel we got screwed with Alito's confirmation, but even the ABA came out in favor of his nomination. But Roberts was considered a definitive scholar.

I think Justice Kennedy is protesting too much and has drawn some conclusions that are not supported by the facts. Not all federal judges and justices are in the game for mere money... there is an element of altrusism for some judges... and prestige for others... and then there is always the power, influence and "lucrative favors" for the rest.