i think they should. We should have a transparent gov't and we should have the right to witness what these judges are doing to our laws/freedoms... especially if they lean right.
2006-08-23 08:23:38 · 9 answers · asked by Kookoo Bananas 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think not. One of the roles of the Supreme Court is to act as a brake on precipitous actions by Congress, the executive branch, some of which are the consequence of the political branches playing to an inflamed public.
It does not always work. I for one think the Court was wrong when it allowed all of the purported Nazi saboteurs to be tried in military tribunals and executed when they were apprehended on American soil where civilian courts were functioning--but their ruling was very much in keeping with public sentiment.
At the same time, public sentiment in this country was very much opposed to school intergration in 1953-4 when the Brown case came before the Court, and the Court ruled in favor of desegregation--bucking the political tide and public sentiment.
An independent Court, free of intimidation and insulated from public outcry made that possible. Putting cameras in the Court would do nothing but undermine its ability to fulfill its proper role.
2006-08-23 08:52:23 · answer #1 · answered by anonymourati 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow a semi inteligent Question from a fruit (nut)
No they shouldn't be, the way it's done now is fine, The judges aren't elected officials they are appointments, by elected officials by the people. They are there to perform a function of law that should be held revered in it's highest stature. The arguements held on the floor and the questioning by the Judges are all that is required. Let the Judges hash it out in closed quarters on the merits of the case.
2006-08-23 09:39:54 · answer #2 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Meetings, as in private deliberations by the judges, no.
Because a lot of what goes on while the decision is being made is based on their ability to speak freely, and to explore many different ideas, and that would be hugely stifled if everyone could watch deliberations. Judges need private time to think out loud, without having to self-censor because they are being watched. Doing so would damage the entire ability of the judiciary to function.
That being said, I have no problems with oral arguments and similar hearings that are already open to the public being televised. If people can physically go watch, they should be allowed to electronically go watch.
2006-08-23 08:31:10 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's the most coherant thing you've ever said kooKoo.Did you leave your caregiver in the closet too long and now you can't get to the meds? You keep talking like that and you may not need them.
2006-08-23 08:38:27 · answer #4 · answered by locksniffer 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes.they lean TOO right.
Just like this:http://allhatnocattle.net/larry%20ann.jp...
2006-08-23 08:35:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
The whole point of lifetime appointments is to make them immune from the "passions of the moment" fomented by public opinion.
2006-08-23 08:29:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I think they should. They could put it on that secondary CSPAN channel.
2006-08-23 08:29:26 · answer #7 · answered by Risika Desaunt 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, we don't need people acting for the camera's
2006-08-23 08:29:54 · answer #8 · answered by Zen 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
...and what if they lean left?
2006-08-23 08:25:39 · answer #9 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋