Commentary: Specter and TV in the Court
Washington newspaper readers woke up on Tuesday morning to a new demand, by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, that the Supreme Court be ordered to open its public proceedings to television coverage. The chairman, in an op-ed article in The Washington Post, made it clear Specter wants to tie the the issue of cameras in the Court to the Court’s rulings striking down federal laws under the Constitution. He makes it appear that part of his motive for sponsoring legislation to put cameras in the Court is hostility to what he calls the Court’s “super-legislature status.” The merits of TV coverage appear to get second priority. The column can be found here.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 30 approved for Senate consideration a bill that would direct the Court to permit TV coverage, outlining what the Court would have to do to keep the cameras out, case by case. The bill, S. 1768, as reported, can be found here. The bill is now on the Senate’s legislative calendar, awaiting scheduling of further action.
The Specter column Tuesday appeared to be, at least in part, a reaction to recent congressional testimony by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, objecting to the Court being forced to accept TV coverage. “The two justices insisted,” the chairman wrote, “that Congress should mind its own business and respect the Court’s autonomy, just as the Court has respected Congress’s autonomy.”
But, he goes on, “does the Supreme Court respect Congress?” He does not then complain of Court intrusion into the internal workings of Congress and the decision of the Senate and House to allow cameras in the legislative halls. Rather, he complains of decisions the Court has made on the merits — a decision striking down part of the Violence Against Women Act and an employment discrimination decision that Specter does not further identify, although he seems to be referring to a ruling on the Americans with Disabilities Act and state sovereignty.
“Within the past decade, the Court has expanded its super-legislature status by invalidating legislation it dislikes, plucking out of the air a brand-new doctrine that acts of Congress are ‘disproportionate and incongruent,’ whatever that means,” according to the chairman, in comments that sound very much like ill-disguised complaints of rampant judicial activism. Thus, the issue of TV coverage of the Court begins to sound retaliatory.
He promotes his legislation as “in the public interest,” saying “the public needs to be able to assess these issues by shining a televised light on the justices.”
(Editing disclosure:: Throughout the column, Specter refers to the Court with a lower case “c.” It it this blog’s style to use a capital letter, so the chairman’s quotes have been so modified.)
Another swing and a miss for the pro-cameras lobby. In essence, Specter seems to be saying that the public is too lazy and stupid to digest the activities of the Supreme Court by way of reading its opinions, or failing that, listening to oral arguments. Even if one buys Specter’s diagnosis of the malady, never is it made entirely clear why television cameras are the remedy.
Comment by Simon — April 25, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
Specter once again demonstrates his cluelessness. He tries so hard to sound like a smart legal scholar, but alas, he fails once again.
The Court’s new federalism, while controversial, is not even in the same category as what Specter is trying to do to the Courts. Now, if the Court started striking down the WAY Congress deliberated and arrived at its decisions, then he’d have a legitimate complaint. However, I have yet to hear of the Court invalidating portions of the Senate rules, so until that time, I wish he’d keep his poor understanding of the separation of powers to himself.
Comment by CDebateAdmin — April 25, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
I have never been much of a fan of Arlen Specter, but having tantrums because the Court has held that certain legislation is unconstitutional seems to be a new low.
Comment by The NJ Annuitant — April 25, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Specter’s fit over the federalism cases is particularly unjustified when you compare it with his persistent argument that judicial nominees pay homage to certain super-duper-precedents. Specter’s call for deference to legislative judgment is, in truth, just a call for deference to Congress’s legislative judgment.
Arlen Specter: Fair-weather friend of the court.
Comment by Adam White — April 25, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
“Sunlight is . . . the best disinfectant.”
This from the Senator who refused to make Attorney General Gonzales take the oath when testifying before the Judiciary Committee?
And I’m sure the fact that Specter gets lots of campaign money from the broadcast lobby has nothing to do with his bizarre obsession with the cameras-in-the-Court movement.
Comment by Snowball007 — April 25, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
Every member of Congress can cite Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree. I don’t know why you’re all villifying Specter for preferring the opposite side of a case that was decided 5-4. I agreed with the majority in that case, but I wouldn’t call the opponents of it “clueless.” Actually, that’s the word I’d use for intemperate people who deny the existence of reasonable views other than their own.
I would not call Specter a “fair-weather friend of the Court.” Like most intelligent people, he agrees with the Court sometimes, and disagrees at other times. What’s so shocking about that?
As for cameras in the court, I favor the legislation Specter has sponsored, and there is very little doubt in my mind that the subject matter falls within Congressional authority.
Comment by Marc Shepherd — April 27, 2006 @ 9:26 am
Marc Shepherd: The problem with the op-ed isn’t that Specter disagrees with the Court. Rather, the problem is that Specter essentially says his cameras-in-the-Court bill is meant to punish the Court for decisions he doesn’t like. That’s disturbing.
Comment by Snowball007 — April 27, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Snowball, I think that’s a mis-reading of Specter’s argument. The bill isn’t punitive or retaliatory. He happens to think that opening the Court to further scrutiny will improve the decision-making process — or, at least, will improve public understanding of that process.
I believe he was also struck by the irony of the reason Justices Kennedy and Thomas offered why Congress should not pass this legislation. The Justices said that Congress should “mind its own business and respect the court’s autonomy.” I agree with Specter that this is a particularly weak argument coming from the Justices–one that they would tear to pieces if it were offered in their courtroom.
Comment by Marc Shepherd — April 28, 2006 @ 8:53 am
I think Specter’s argument is the one that is particularly weak. It’s hardly a revelation that the Court does NOT get involved in the inner workings of Congress. THAT would be the analogous situation in this case. The Court’s decisions striking down acts of Congress, whether they be gun zoning or porn laws, are simply not the same.
And yes, I do think that the court would listen to arguments about the autonomy of Congress IF the case presented was an analogous situation, say someone challenging the senate rules. But it would be an absolute dereliction of duty for the Court to use that argument when deciding the constitutionality of federal law. Federal law does not get a pass from legitimate judicial review just because it is is enacted by that magical body known as Congress. Congress does not reside in a constitution-free zone where it is bound and constrained by nothing. Specter’s argument is no better than Bush’s in that regard.
Comment by CDebateAdmin — April 28, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
A week or so ago, federalist was urging the Executive to ignore the Court’s decisions because he disagreed with them. Assuming that annoynace at the Court really is the reason Specter is pushing cameras in the courtroom, his response seems fairly measured in comparison. That said, if OJ didn’t teach us anything about cameras in courtrooms, we’re hopeless.
Comment by skeptik — April 30, 2006 @ 3:32 am