Jordan Rubin: The public should have the option of tuning in to hear what our most powerful public servants are up to in open court.
So what’s the logic in permitting the public to hear arguments while they’re happening but not the results of those arguments when the justices explain them?
Its decision to keep the audio confined serves as a form of information control over the people bound by the decisions being announced. As is often the case with the court’s workings, we’re left to speculate. We know it’s not a logistical problem, because the court has demonstrated that it can regularly livestream arguments — which it wasn't doing pre-pandemic. And these announcements are being made in open court, so the justices’ words aren’t a complete secret.
Maybe the issue of opinion announcement audio seems like a small thing to some people. The opinions themselves are public; these are merely the justices’ words, and not necessarily the exact words of the opinions at that. There’s some measure of truth there, but, ultimately, it’s belied by the court’s decision to keep those words cooped up.
And it’s worth emphasizing that this isn’t about broadcasting the court’s private conferences or anything of the sort. This is about making public, in a humbly modern way, a purportedly public event. It's about sharing the justices’ chosen words with the millions of people who are bound by them. If people choose not to tune in, then that’s their choice. It shouldn’t be the court’s.Jordan Rubin is a blog writer for MSNBC focused on legal analysis.
Deutschland Neuesten Nachrichten, Deutschland Schlagzeilen
Similar News:Sie können auch ähnliche Nachrichten wie diese lesen, die wir aus anderen Nachrichtenquellen gesammelt haben.
Michael Lindenberger, Pulitzer-winner for Chronicle work, dies in Kansas City.Michael Lindenberger, Pulitzer-winner for Chronicle editorial section, dies in Kansas City
Weiterlesen »
Michael Lindenberger, Pulitzer winner at Houston Chronicle, dies“Michael had a deep connection with people who were overlooked. Just a deep streak for social justice.”
Weiterlesen »
Supreme Court won't block California flavored tobacco banThe Supreme Court on Monday refused a request from tobacco companies to stop California from enforcing a ban on flavored tobacco products that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in November. R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies sought the high court's intervention to keep the ban from taking effect by Dec. 21. The ban was first passed by the state legislature two years ago but it never took effect after tobacco companies gathered enough signatures to put it on the ballot.
Weiterlesen »
Supreme Court will not block California's flavored tobacco ban -SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – The Supreme Court of the United States will not block the state of California’s ban on flavored tobacco. The flavored tobacco ban is set to take effect December 21, 2022, after being overwhelmingly approved by California voters nearly two years ago. Several tobacco companies had asked the high court to intervene and stop the potential removal,...
Weiterlesen »
U.S. Supreme Court declines to block California’s ban on flavored cigarettesR.J. Reynolds, which makes menthol cigarettes, argued the state law conflicts with a federal law called the Tobacco Control Act that gives the federal Food and Drug Administration the authority to …
Weiterlesen »