|
LafayetteLady -> RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care (11/18/2011 10:34:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker
I don't see trouble if it is done by the courts permission in the occasional landmark cases. It would sreve as an educational tool for everyone from primary schools to law students, too.
SCOTUS has some healthy contempt powers to deal with any grandstanding or other trouble, and if you get found in contempt of court, just who are you going to appeal the ruling to?
Every case that makes it to the Supreme Court is potentially a "landmark" case. So while I understand what you are trying to say, the reality is that you just proved my point; that many people really just don't have the kind of grasp on how the law works (beyond what affects their daily life) to really understand what they are hearing.
In other words, you would sit and listen to, in this case, five hours of testimony, most of which is either going to be filled with so much case citations and legalese that you don't understand it, or will be so tedious, it will put you to sleep. Then you will listen to an hour or so of someone analyzing the highlights and telling you what was said.
So what is the point, really? If they are going to "open" the Court, have them allow the qualified reporters (the legal analysts, typically journalists with a background in law, law professors or lawyers that now report) to sit in on the case and then each individual is free to choose which analyst they prefer (like anyone wants Nancy Grace to tell them) and they get the synopsis in a way they can understand.
I would even go so far as to say that the news stations could film it, but not air it in its entirety, but rather use it to highlight what the analysts were talking about. It is a much better use of time and resources. If one doesn't like Fox News, they can watch CNN or whoever, because the major "players" in that kind of reporting would be watching.
|
|
|
|
