Say these things. This say trend unfortunately we see. Nominees start out in support. They change their mind. Which suggests we cant wait out this issue. Its not an age issue. This is a concern about the public and that we keep hearing this concern that the public wont understand what theyre seeing, that they wouldnt understand oral argument is just a part of the process. They wont understand that the justices have to be harsh on both sides. They mied think someone is getting ganged up on. I find this to be concerning because it suggests that more information is actually going to be bad for the public, that the public needs to be shielded from information. It does seem to have an elitism to it that already those of us who do read the transcripts and li listen to the audio or read the reports from the Supreme Court press corps, that were the types that can understand where oral argument falls but tv would reach a different kind of audience who wouldnt understand it. I find this very con
Property belonging to the public. And not subject to the particular Decision Making of any particular justice when he or she leaves the court, and when you ask what access means to me, everyone that responded in terms of extreme particularity, i wrote some statistics down. My wifes grandfather was a friend of Justice Douglas and we discovered when he passed away that he had a number of letters from douglas and we were kind of trophy hunting going through the papers and seeing the stuff. So i looked it up online to see what i could find out about the papers of Justice Douglas and where they were. And, of course, you go to the Supreme Court website and immediately send you someplace else because its not the kind of thing that they are collect and gathering, although they should. As you make your way through a number of other websites, i found with great particularity great information about the papers of Justice Douglas, which i will share with you. Theyre at the library of congress. The
Although it is important. I just find that my work both inside and outside of the federal government, you know, going to someone, anyone and saying hey, i would like to place a camera behind you so i can watch and scrutinize everything that you do in realtime tends to be a tough sell. So i tend to lead with more substantial arguments like, this does not reflect on the dignity of your job. So i think those are the three things that matter the most to me around transparency. And why i care about this issue. Good morning. I want to thank gabe for inviting me and tony and dahlia for hosting it. Im excited to be here. My skin in this game is pretty serious. I teach constitutional law at Georgia State in atlanta. Its ironic to me that the Supreme Court might be the least Transparent Court in the United States because at best i am with judge pozner that it is a political court. I in fact dont think its a court at all. To the extent there are transparency issues to begin with judges i dont thi
Thats where you may see an agenda. My question really is, i know in the united eight we have places inre judges are elected. Canada and israel, are there some judges and Court Systems where there is an election . Are you kidding . I remember in judgment at nuremberg there is a scene where Marlena Dietrich is walking with spencer tracy. I love movies. Oscar night for me is a religious night. She said, this is your country . I remember it was so odd the notion that you are directly responsive to the public for the decisions where you have to choose a side that may not be the one giving you the money. Who do you go to for fund raising . Im not saying there are very good judges who are elected. Theory ofg about the an election where you are directly responsible to the majority for decisionmaking. , ifou are doing sentencing you are doing constitutional rights, you are having to decide a minority versus a majority interest, and if you really like hearing a judge and you want to go back for
For a reception and appear in front of 500 people in a room speech, itpublic should be recorded and theres no good reason why we should had to cede to his request that it not be recorded. Why did you . He wouldnt have come otherwise. On these remarks, its selfevident that they are thatrent in the sense other than justice kagan, theyve come from one cloistered life to another. To the priesthood is through the federal appellate these institutions are bundled up so when they get to the Supreme Court, they dont range of professions and exposures in public life that other Government People would have by the time they got high rung. Youre saying theyre different because they have super thin skin . Not because no, its because theyre transparency is not a technical issue or a legal cultural issue. When transparency is a technical issue, it fails, it almost always fails. If you look at the president s open government agenda, when the president on day one was like were going to open up all of. G