Supreme Court Justices Reject Video Coverage, Again

[J.K. Gregg]

[Pebble]

[Hyperion]

The decision ultimately rests with the public but we already subject high-profile cases to kangaroo courts (Michael Jackson? Any national homicide?). I say leave it closed.

In fact I'm sick of all high-profile court cases being filmed. It completely degrades the process.

[Kane]

[Precocity]

[Kane]

[Precocity]

Yeah but it's ironic that she didn't think people were stupid when she was speaking at her nomination hearing. She was all for transparency then. Funny how things can change. Kind of like how people scream for tax increases until their taxes go up.

[Kane]

What kind of transparency? SCOTUS has a history of being secretive anyways.

[Precocity]

[Hyperion]

I think the opinion of a judge is inconsequential to the actual debate. A person has the right to change his or her mind. Thankfully, many of Reagan and Bush's appointees did so on abortion and other civil rights suites.

What will cameras accomplish? What are the positives vs the negatives? I don't think an honest man would say it's all good or all bad, but overall I think that how the court will be turned into a circus like the MJ trial. If you want to know the actual conversations held on record, you can acquire that. We don't need to evaluate a judge's frown or have BREAKING COVERAGE over so and so's 'hideous, life-altering cough!'