Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | With Covington's Help, Congress Apologizes for Anti-Chinese Discrimination »

June 19, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e2016306bb1198970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senators Urge Supreme Court to Allow Live Broadcast of Health Care Decisions:

Comments

D A Weaver

It is time that this country that is of the people, for the people and by the people be returned to the people. Now is the time! Do not remain silent while our rights are taken away!

Interested

I agree with 11:44 am. The written opinion is what is important. Very well said regarding reality tv and what SCOTUS 'owes' the public. There have been hundreds of very important decisions from SCOTUS over the years. What we want is a well reasoned opinion, not a side show or a ratings grabber, and all we can ask is that SCOTUS posts the full written opinion as soon as possible to their website.

Nat Fitzsimmons

I fail to understand the facination with hearing this decision "live." The written decision is what will be reviewed, dissected and interpreted. The holding will be the key to what will remain (all, some, none) of the law. Other than the bringing of SCOTUS into the realm of reality TV, or somehow feeding the efforts of some to influence the Court's decisions, I don't see the point, nor do I think SCOTUS owes the public anything but a well-reasoned opinion, either way.

Rethinking

SCOTUS owes this to the country. Their reported concerns about influencing the exchanges during oral argument are not applicable at this stage. Moreover, if the Justice in the majority opts to read the full opinion rather than a brief summary, or if a dissenting Justice decides to read a dissent, it must be because he or she deems it important enough to speak rather than just release the paper. The American people deserve to see the face and hear the voice of the justice in that event. There can be no legitimate justification for limiting the number witnessing the reading to the 250 souls the current courtroom accommodates.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements