More Evidence Of The Law Being Out Of Reach Of Ordinary Citizens

Roberts Skeptical of Televising Supreme Court Oral Arguments

I cannot fathom how televising--or video recording--can be seen as anything but useful for our nation. It would allow us a view into how the court works, its procedures and the way our SCOTUS justices use the process to work on the issues presented to them... and provide us with a historical record and archive that would be useful for the study of US History, Law and Public Policy.

Chief Justice Roberts ought to realize that having our citizenry garner a greater understanding of the Court cannot be a bad thing. His statement that the purpose of oral arguments is strictly for the SCOTUS Justices demonstrates an ignorance of the Constitution in that it requires all court proceedings to be held in the open except where national security is at issue. But he hasn't forgotten his own pocketbook in the process... he is advocating more pay for judges and justices.

I would rather have more judges and justices... especially those that have read our Constitution frequently.

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday expressed skepticism at the idea of allowing television cameras into Supreme Court proceedings, saying that the justices are concerned that cameras could have an "adverse impact" on the Court's functioning. Roberts reminded advocates of televised Supreme Court sessions that the purpose of oral arguments is to educate the justices on the facts of the dispute before them, not to educate the public on how the Court works. Roberts gave his first public comments on televised oral arguments since his confirmation hearings last September during a question-and-answer session at the annual conference of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Justices Thomas and Kennedy in April spoke against legislation intended to bring cameras into the courtroom, and Justice Breyer spoke against televising the oral arguments of criminal cases during a 2005 ABA symposium.

Roberts also advocated higher salaries for federal judges, noting that the low pay relative to private sector practice deters some of the nation's best lawyers from serving on the federal bench. Roberts' 2005 year-end report on the federal judiciary raised similar concerns The San Francisco Chronicle has more.