Learn from the mistakes of others

[JURIST] During a US House Appropriations Committee hearing [announcement] Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy [official profiles] spoke against a bill [PDF text] that would permit public broadcasting of Supreme Court oral arguments. The justices told lawmakers that allowing cameras in the courtroom would alter the nature of the proceedings, and that just as the Supreme Court [official website] always avoids telling Congress how to operate, Congress should not interfere in the functioning of the Supreme Court.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) suggested that the Court should move towards transparency, a sentiment echoed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last week where that committee approved a similar bill [JURIST report] for full Senate consideration. Both versions of the legislation would allow a majority of justices to ban cameras in any case where televised oral arguments could violate the due process rights of any party to a lawsuit. Justices sparred over the issue [JURIST report] at an American Bar Association conference last November. Justice David Souter famously told a congressional panel in 1996 that "the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."

AP has more.

[JURIST] During a US House Appropriations Committee hearing [announcement] Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy [official profiles] spoke against a bill [PDF text] that would permit public broadcasting of Supreme Court oral arguments. The justices told lawmakers that allowing cameras in the courtroom would alter the nature of the proceedings, and that just as the Supreme Court [official website] always avoids telling Congress how to operate, Congress should not interfere in the functioning of the Supreme Court.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) suggested that the Court should move towards transparency, a sentiment echoed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last week where that committee approved a similar bill [JURIST report] for full Senate consideration. Both versions of the legislation would allow a majority of justices to ban cameras in any case where televised oral arguments could violate the due process rights of any party to a lawsuit. Justices sparred over the issue [JURIST report] at an American Bar Association conference last November. Justice David Souter famously told a congressional panel in 1996 that "the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."

AP has more.

[JURIST] Jim McGinty [official profile], Attorney General of Western Australia [government website], has announced plans to introduce legislation that would allow for regular television broadcast of court proceedings in the state, which would make the state's courts [official list] the first in the country to broadcast proceedings regularly. The proposal comes weeks before the completion of a high-tech, high security courthouse in Perth, the state capital, constructed to counter security concerns raised after a much-publicized courthouse attack in 2004. McGinty has made it clear that broadcasting would be done in a manner that would not "overthrow traditions but make it modern and efficient" while at the same time not jeopardizing the privacy of jurors, victims or witnesses. The legislation would not affect all of Australia, only state courts.

AAP has more.

The proposed measure is similar in spirit to an amendment [PDF] approved [JURIST report] by the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] last week that would allow US Supreme Court proceedings to be televised.

[JURIST] Jim McGinty [official profile], Attorney General of Western Australia [government website], has announced plans to introduce legislation that would allow for regular television broadcast of court proceedings in the state, which would make the state's courts [official list] the first in the country to broadcast proceedings regularly. The proposal comes weeks before the completion of a high-tech, high security courthouse in Perth, the state capital, constructed to counter security concerns raised after a much-publicized courthouse attack in 2004. McGinty has made it clear that broadcasting would be done in a manner that would not "overthrow traditions but make it modern and efficient" while at the same time not jeopardizing the privacy of jurors, victims or witnesses. The legislation would not affect all of Australia, only state courts.

AAP has more.

The proposed measure is similar in spirit to an amendment [PDF] approved [JURIST report] by the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] last week that would allow US Supreme Court proceedings to be televised.