This week, two Supreme Court justices testified before a House subcommittee and specifically argued that Congress should not get in the Court's business regarding the televising of Court proceedings. While the Justices justified their resistance to televising the Court with fancy and lofty words such as "deference" and "etiquette," the real reason may be the difference between the Court and more popular jurists, such as Judge Judy. what do yous think ?
2007-03-01 09:48:23 · 9 answers · asked by star ray 3 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
Nice doggy picture.
2007-03-01 09:57:02 · answer #1 · answered by half asleep 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the Supreme Court (or any like court) should be in the entertainment business. But I don't think it would do harm to televise the sessions. If they are boring enough, they'll lose the thrill seekers, and be able to keep to their business. If, on the other hand, they start to ham it up, they will lose their credibiility like some other parts of government that have gone show-business, in which case eventually the people will have had enough of it and press for stern measures that ram it to false judges.
To take the other side, if people are disappointed when they watch the Supreme Court and find that it bores them, they have lots of other options. They can watch Judge Judy and other entertainment judges (a form of reality TV that selects the most entertaining, or pathetic, people who have problems and presents their dilemmas in the form of a court drama) or they can watch fantasy programs like Boston Legal that enables them to laugh at judges, lawyers, and the whole lot, but learn something about some of the issues as the entertainment industry sees them.
As the French say, "chacun a la son gout" — "each to his own taste."
2007-03-01 10:04:10 · answer #2 · answered by silvcslt 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We seem to be turning our courts into reality TV shows. It shouldn't be that way. Justice, alot of times, is not blind, and it can sense and smell the presence of money. Making a circus of it by putting it on TV just makes it worse. A prime example is the Anna Smith hearings. Just give me the details of what happened and what was decided. Or, put it on a specific channel so those who want to see it can tune it in and see it. If I want to see the hearing or the trial I'll go to the courthouse.
2007-03-01 12:25:30 · answer #3 · answered by jorst 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not in favor of televising court procedings. I suspect a lot of judges pander to the camera. This is not in the best interests of justice.
2007-03-01 10:01:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm with the other two!
Sorry i nearly wet myself that was so funny!
2007-03-01 09:54:39 · answer #5 · answered by Alicat 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
dont really know what your talking about...only answerd coz it confused the beejesus out of me
2007-03-01 09:51:31 · answer #6 · answered by Rob F 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
..........as you said complicated questions deserve a simple answer...so sorry I have no idea!
2007-03-01 09:58:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you need to get out more!
2007-03-01 09:52:01 · answer #8 · answered by Mickey Corleone 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i like your dog
2007-03-01 11:18:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋