Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a dispute over the federal health care law, the justices are facing the strongest challenge to their ban on televised hearings.Members of Congress and news industry leaders have asked the court to allow the televising of oral arguments, to be held over five and a half hours during two days in March.A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found that 72% of the people surveyed think the justices should allow cameras for those arguments. Several polls in the past decade have shown majority support for televising the court's arguments, in general.
The pressure from Congress, which included a Senate hearing last week on legislation that would require the televising of most arguments, and from outside interests following the health care case, could present a turning point in breaking down justices' resistance to cameras."I can't think of another case in recent years, except Bush v. Gore, that has generated so much public interest," says Sally Rider, former administrative assistant to Chief Justices William Rehnquist and John Roberts and now a University of Arizona law professor, referring to the 2000 Florida election case.How Spy Cams Make Life More Expedient ?
"Now that I'm away from the court," Rider added, "it's incredible how often I hear people talk about wanting to see oral arguments. When they find out they're not on TV, they are shocked." Yet Rider cautioned that the justices might think if they say yes to televising the health care controversy, they would be pressured to open other arguments."I think it's inevitable that we'll have cameras in the court. The question is when," says New York University law professor Barry Friedman, who studies the judiciary and public attitudes. "This case would be a wonderful, object lesson in the work of the court."
No comments:
Post a Comment