videotaping the supreme court

[Thai, Joseph T.]

I agree that audiotapes may have the same influence, in kind if not
degree, and I'm not defending the Court's decision.  FYI, audiotapes
usually are not immediately available to the media.  Only in
exceptionally important cases (e.g. Bush v. Gore) has the Court recently
made the tapes available on the same day.

I believe Justice Souter or some other justice may have defended the
Court's ban several years back (prior to 2000) before Congress, during
an annual budget hearing.

Joe

Joseph T. Thai
Associate Professor
University of Oklahoma College of Law
thai at ou.edu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jessica Silbey [mailto:jsilbey at suffolk.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:35 AM
> To: Thai, Joseph T.; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: videotaping the supreme court
> 
> Right, but that suggests that knowing the argument is audiotaped
doesn't
> have the same influence on the advocates or the justices.  Can that be
the
> case? I gather mainstream news venues are less likely to play
audiotape
> soundbites than audio-with-visual soundbites.  Although, certainly,
> newspapers (and some less-than-mainstream television news programs)
will
> frequently print pictures of the Justices or advocates after a
> controversial
> decision or argument and the accompanying article/commentary will
contains
> quotes from the decision or argument.
> 
> ________________________________
> Jessica Silbey
> Assistant Professor of Law
> Suffolk University Law School
> 120 Tremont Street
> Boston, MA 02108
> 617-305-6270 (office)
> 617-305-3079 (fax)
> jsilbey at suffolk.edu
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Thai, Joseph
T.
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:27 AM
> To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: videotaping the supreme court
> 
> Samuel surely gave one non-legal (and in my view unjustifiable) reason
> why some justices do not want cameras in the courtroom.  A legal
reason
> often advanced is that the lack of cameras keeps arguments substantive
> and focused on the Court's concerns rather than on sound bites for the
> evening news.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Joseph T. Thai
> Associate Professor
> University of Oklahoma College of Law
> thai at ou.edu
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-
> > bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Silbey
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:13 AM
> > To: 'Samuel Bagenstos'; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject: RE: videotaping the supreme court
> >
> > This is interesting -- why is this not a concern for other public
> > officials
> > whether appointed or elected (I'm thinking of the attorney general,
> white
> > house counsel, or congress people) who are also in the spotlight and
> > frequently on camera discussing or commenting on controversial
topics?
> > Does
> > the lack of the camera in the supreme courtroom further the illusion
> of
> > the
> > justices' independence from party politics and mainstream media? Or
> does
> > the
> > lack of a camera in their courtroom in fact insulate the justices'
> from
> > what
> > they consider to be irrelevant distractions?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Jessica Silbey
> > Assistant Professor of Law
> > Suffolk University Law School
> > 120 Tremont Street
> > Boston, MA 02108
> > 617-305-6270 (office)
> > 617-305-3079 (fax)
> > jsilbey at suffolk.edu
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Samuel Bagenstos [mailto:srbagenstos at wulaw.wustl.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:29 AM
> > To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; jsilbey at suffolk.edu
> > Subject: Re: videotaping the supreme court
> >
> > Because the Justices don't want to be recognized on the street.
> >
> > ====================================
> > Samuel R. Bagenstos
> > Professor of Law
> > Washington University School of Law
> > One Brookings Drive
> > St. Louis, MO  63130
> > 314-935-9097
> > Personal Web Page:
> > http://law.wustl.edu/Academics/Faculty/Bagenstos/index.html
> > Disability Law Blog:  http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/
> >
> > >>> "Jessica Silbey" <jsilbey at suffolk.edu> 3/1/2005 9:22:27 AM >>>
> > I have been unable to find the answer to a student question:  Why
does
> > the
> > Supreme Court not allow its arguments to be videotaped, only audio
> > recorded?
> > I'd appreciate any educated guesses (or answers) from members of the
> > list-serve.  Many thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Jessica
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Jessica Silbey
> >
> > Assistant Professor of Law
> >
> > Suffolk University Law School
> >
> > 120 Tremont Street
> >
> > Boston, MA 02108
> >
> > 617-305-6270 (office)
> >
> > 617-305-3079 (fax)
> >
> > jsilbey at suffolk.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
as
> > private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
are
> > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or
> > wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
(rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> 
> 
>