I’ve written before about the U.S. Supreme Court delaying release of audiotapes of oral arguments it heard involving “salty” language.
Syndicated columnist Ruth Marcus writes the court deliberately prolongs posting those recordings. And she believes that should change.
So do I.
“The public is zero for seven at the Supreme Court this term,” Marcus wrote. “That tally doesn't involve the justices' votes on cases. It's the number of times that the court has been asked (seven) and agreed (zero) to release same-day audio recordings of oral arguments in important cases.”
Since their inception, the courts, especially federal appeals courts, have been shrouded in mystery and secrecy. And that signature through the years has hindered using technology to increase significant levels of “public access” of government business.
The nation’s most important court, the U.S. Supreme Court, is following suit.
Marcus offers this point: “Of the 11 requests made (for immediate audio release) to the court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist, nine were granted. The (Chief Justice John) Roberts Court has approved only 12 of 35 requests. Last year, audio was released for just two arguments (the big campaign finance case, Citizens United, and a major voting-rights dispute).”
So, what’s the problem?
We live in a world where high-speed transmission of myriad kinds of information allow people — for better and worse — to go to places and get into things they otherwise might not.
I think access to the business of America’s most powerful court would be for the better.
Part of the problem comes with the age of the court members. Many are not “tech” savvy and cling to the notion that it’s “their” courtroom. Just because the technology provides opportunity for access, they aren’t obligated to grant it. Remember: These folks get appointed for life and generally do not arrive on the bench until their mid-50s.
Justices may face more and more cases involving technology, but they do not embrace using it.
The information provided by Marcus indicates that the cases holding the public’s interest become the ones the court delays the longest.
Remember: We are not talking about still or video cameras or live audio coverage. So, the “intrusiveness” or the “disruptive” arguments seem hollow to me.
Maybe the audio posting policy will change as more justices join the bench who grasp the philosophy of the public’s right to access the courts and who appreciate technology’s value in helping the public understand how government works.
Don’t count on it happening any time soon. Roberts, as chief justice, dictates the policy, and he could serve for a long time.
Resources:
- www.courier-journal.com/article/...
- www.npr.org/templates/story/...
- www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/...
- www.thefreelibrary.com/Laws,+regulations/...
Post new comment