Some requests for the Chief
News organizations have urged the new Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr., to make more of the Supreme Court’s work accessible to the public and the media — including providing same-day availability of the audiotapes of all of the Court’s oral arguments. In a letter to the Chief Justice, dated Oct. 7, the groups have used Roberts’ entry on the Court as an opening to renew a number of suggestions that in the past have produced few results.
The suggestion that seems least likely to succeed this time is for television and/or still cameras in the Courtroom for oral argument. In the past, the Court has treated this issue as one that must be decided by a favorable unanimous vote, and that has not been forthcoming. Justice David H. Souter, for example, has routinely — and publicly — made clear his vehement opposition to television coverage of arguments.
Here are the other suggestions the groups made for improving “transparency and public access”:
1. Immediate release of the written transcripts of oral arguments (now available usually 7 to 10 days after argument day).
2. Either increase the number of cases for which audiotapes or arguments are released on the day of argument, or release all audiotapes on a same-day basis.
3. Public release of the reasons Justices recuse from particpating in cases.
4. Public release of more detailed information about the individual Justices’ health.
5. Public release of the Justices’ plans to make public appearances.
“Immediate release of the written transcripts of oral arguments (now available usually 7 to 10 days after argument day).”
By “available” do you mean available from the reporting company at a stiff fee? The October 3 transcipts are not on the Court’s transcript page on its Web site as of October 19.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html
The page says, “The Court’s current contract Courtroom reporter, Alderson Reporting Company, provides transcripts of oral arguments that are posted on this Website within 10-15 business days after the close of the argument session…. Persons wishing to obtain transcripts sooner than they are posted here, for a fee, should contact Alderson….”
I would like to see the Court post things on the Web site (both transcripts and opinions) at the same time they are available to anyone at any price. One of the great benefits of the Internet is the egalitarian effect of making information universally available, decreasing the advantages of both physical proximity and deep pockets. Selling advance information when it is privately owned is all well and good, but when the information is a government product, it should be universally available.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — October 19, 2005 @ 3:19 pm
To add to Kent’s comments, I’d like to see streaming audio of oral argument. Cameras in the court would detract from the intimate nature of oral argument at the high court. Audio streaming, however wouldn’t. Several of the circuits are making audio available the day after argument.
I don’t think we need to know every maudlin detail of the justice’s health. To some extent, its not of our buisness.
Comment by Brad D. Bailey — October 19, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
#4 is pretty shocking stuff. When the NY Times starts including its editors’ daily blood pressure in its masthead, then maybe they can ask to know how anyone else’s health is doing. I’m not interested in knowing the health of Justices of the Supreme Court or any other civil servant, elected or otherwise, and it strikes me as profoundly invasive that anyone would even ask.
Comment by Simon — October 20, 2005 @ 12:34 am
Simon, we routinely expect considerablly more disclosure from public servants than private citizens would ever be expected to put up with.
I don’t care about routine medical procedures. But when the Chief Justice is sufficiently ill that he is missing oral arguments and not participating in decisions, the public is entitled to know what is going on.
I mean, if I were as seriously ill as we now know the Chief was, I think my boss would be entitled to know the situation. Supreme Court Justices are responsible to the public, and an infirmity as serious as the late Chief’s warranted more thorough and timely disclosure than we received.
Comment by Marc Shepherd — October 20, 2005 @ 6:36 pm