Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 10:20:22 AM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		The following opinion piece was published in the NY Times:

Exceptional Court Coverage

C-Span asked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. this week to let the network televise the upcoming Supreme Court arguments in the case challenging the health care law. The justices have not permitted TV cameras in their courtroom, but this landmark case, which will affect every American, should surely be an exception to that rule.

What chances do you think we have for the Supreme Court to allow this?  Do you think it is a good idea or not?
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 10:25:29 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Personally, I'm thinking slim and none. It would set a bad precedent as far as they were concerned. I'd love to see it happen strictly from the educational standpoint but they won't allow it.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 10:31:49 AM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Personally, I'm thinking slim and none. It would set a bad precedent as far as they were concerned. I'd love to see it happen strictly from the educational standpoint but they won't allow it.


I agree that the chances are slim, though personally I don't see why not.  As the "employers" of the Supreme Court, I think we ought to be able to view any and all proceedings.  I understand that they publish transcripts of arguments and weekly audio recordings, but seriously, in this communications age, they might as well be using smoke signals. 

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 10:45:30 AM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Personally, I'm thinking slim and none. It would set a bad precedent as far as they were concerned. I'd love to see it happen strictly from the educational standpoint but they won't allow it.


I agree that the chances are slim, though personally I don't see why not.  As the "employers" of the Supreme Court, I think we ought to be able to view any and all proceedings.  I understand that they publish transcripts of arguments and weekly audio recordings, but seriously, in this communications age, they might as well be using smoke signals. 



By keeping it from being televised, they do prevent any attempts at posturing by any of the attorneys, which sadly, once a television camera is in the room, can happen.

Really even with transcripts and audio recordings, the general public doesn't understand what they are reading or hearing. Legalese often appears to say one thing when it says the opposite. Granted, it no longer reads like a Shakespearian play, but a lot of that stuff can take more effort than a quick scan to read. There are plenty of people here who *think* they understand what a law, legal document, or ruling says, when really they have miscontrued and misunderstood what they read (or the source they got it from does).

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 10:55:12 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		I agree with what LL said about grandstanding attorneys. Put em on TV and dayummmmmmmmmmm. Maybe if they televise it, they can put the attorneys up under a spotlight afterwards and let Simon Cowell critique them. THAT would be entertainment.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 11:03:54 AM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I agree with what LL said about grandstanding attorneys. Put em on TV and dayummmmmmmmmmm. Maybe if they televise it, they can put the attorneys up under a spotlight afterwards and let Simon Cowell critique them. THAT would be entertainment.


Can you imagine? Although, if anyone watches X-Factor, it seems Simon Cowell is not nearly as nasty as he was in the earlier years of American Idol. Either he was faking it then, or (my suspicion), he is getting laid more with the new girlfriend and a happier guy, lol.

Sorry for the minor derail, but it it is the cock's fault (it is ALWAYS some cock's fault, isn't it?)

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 11:06:07 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I agree with what LL said about grandstanding attorneys. Put em on TV and dayummmmmmmmmmm. Maybe if they televise it, they can put the attorneys up under a spotlight afterwards and let Simon Cowell critique them. THAT would be entertainment.


Can you imagine? Although, if anyone watches X-Factor, it seems Simon Cowell is not nearly as nasty as he was in the earlier years of American Idol. Either he was faking it then, or (my suspicion), he is getting laid more with the new girlfriend and a happier guy, lol.

Sorry for the minor derail, but it it is the cock's fault (it is ALWAYS some cock's fault, isn't it?)

YeahYeahYeah, blame it on the Dom.

I just figured with the nastiness that's been flying around the forums for the last few days, folks need a giggle.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 11:20:23 AM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline 		Who said anything about Dom? Lots of male subs with cocks too, you know? More of an "anti-male" statement (in jest, before people get all pissy, as usual).

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 11:24:44 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Just practicing silliness LL.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 11:33:03 AM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline 		Did you need practice? I thought you had it down...

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 11:37:17 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Makes perfect.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 12:07:40 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

The following opinion piece was published in the NY Times:

Exceptional Court Coverage

C-Span asked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. this week to let the network televise the upcoming Supreme Court arguments in the case challenging the health care law. The justices have not permitted TV cameras in their courtroom, but this landmark case, which will affect every American, should surely be an exception to that rule.

What chances do you think we have for the Supreme Court to allow this?  Do you think it is a good idea or not?



I think there is zero chance that they will allow it, and I think it is a terrible idea. The presence of TV cameras changes the dynamic and demeanor of the exchange. It is a terrible precedent that would just lay the groundwork for presenting a case to the SCOTUS becoming yet another opportunity for facetime and video resume building.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 2:12:47 PM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

By keeping it from being televised, they do prevent any attempts at posturing by any of the attorneys, which sadly, once a television camera is in the room, can happen.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I agree with what LL said about grandstanding attorneys. Put em on TV and dayummmmmmmmmmm. Maybe if they televise it, they can put the attorneys up under a spotlight afterwards and let Simon Cowell critique them. THAT would be entertainment.


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I think there is zero chance that they will allow it, and I think it is a terrible idea. The presence of TV cameras changes the dynamic and demeanor of the exchange. It is a terrible precedent that would just lay the groundwork for presenting a case to the SCOTUS becoming yet another opportunity for facetime and video resume building.


That's a good point, but would it really make any difference?  Do you think CSpan televising the House and Senate has caused this grandstanding and has it adversely affected their function?

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 2:30:07 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:


What chances do you think we have for the Supreme Court to allow this? Do you think it is a good idea or not?


While William MAY be right about the odds, I am somewhat more hopeful than that. I think Scalia and Kennedy won't want the public to see the actual maneuvering and perhaps even worry about the precedent it sets (ABOUT TIME IF YOU ASK ME.... these guys have ruled extensively on  the privacy of the American people and what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
   This is a good topic ... thanks



_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 2:35:09 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		Personally*as an outsider* I would be interested in seeing the workings, from an educational point of view, BUT I do doubt it will occur. Having seen, "real" HOP and trials for the US, UK and Canadian over the years, I would be interested to see the process in this matter, altho I can guarantee I would switch channels from tediousness.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 2:36:03 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

By keeping it from being televised, they do prevent any attempts at posturing by any of the attorneys, which sadly, once a television camera is in the room, can happen.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I agree with what LL said about grandstanding attorneys. Put em on TV and dayummmmmmmmmmm. Maybe if they televise it, they can put the attorneys up under a spotlight afterwards and let Simon Cowell critique them. THAT would be entertainment.


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I think there is zero chance that they will allow it, and I think it is a terrible idea. The presence of TV cameras changes the dynamic and demeanor of the exchange. It is a terrible precedent that would just lay the groundwork for presenting a case to the SCOTUS becoming yet another opportunity for facetime and video resume building.


That's a good point, but would it really make any difference?  Do you think CSpan televising the House and Senate has caused this grandstanding and has it adversely affected their function?



Yes, I think it has contributed to a lot of the partisan posturing.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 7:01:30 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline 		But aren't those coverages somewhat limited in the sense that you see the discussions, but there are still a lot of things that are slipped into those bills that aren't discussed on the floor?

I think there should be some concern over whether or not allowing the cameras in once would lead to a demand for the cameras all the time. The Supreme Court doesn't only have hearings on something like this, but all kinds of cases that are brought by attorneys who really have no desire for being public figures.

Allowing the cameras one time could potentially have outsiders petitioning for cameras for all kinds of other cases that really don't need to have the world watching. For example, did we all really need to see the OJ trial? Or Casey Anthony? Or Murray (MJ's doctor)? OJ's trial set the precendent for televising "high profile" cases, but was it a good idea?

I do think that allowing television cameras in the Supreme Court *could* adversely affect their function in the sense that it could cause attorneys to lose focus on their cases by shifting their focus to publicity. Certainly not all attorneys are going to lose focus, or more accurately fail to represent their clients with the due diligence they deserve, but is the public's now incessant desire to *see* everything first hand, enabled by technology, worth the risk?

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 9:03:06 PM   
FirstQuaker


Posts: 787
Joined: 3/19/2011
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 10:34:40 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FirstQuaker)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care - 11/18/2011 10:39:54 PM   
FirstQuaker


Posts: 787
Joined: 3/19/2011
Status: offline 		True, but then just when or how would anyone get an understanding, otherwise.

Most all the cites would be in the briefs anyway, most those caring would have already done their footwork.

Myself, I think the legal wonks would be the primary ones watching it, and soundbites. talking heads and blurbs would be what the public gets.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Supreme Court Coverage and Health Care Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078