OPEN COURTS — Among other issues around which Judge Sonia Sotomayor found herself tapdancing in her second session of Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings today was the question of cameras in the courtroomincluding in the chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court. Short answer: She's not afraid of video coverage herself, but would not try to rock the boat as a freshman justice. Of course, she said it much better.
Meanwhile Daniel Schuman, writing for the Sunlight Foundation, has a few more particularized queries in the area of court transparency via technology:
- Would she support requiring the Supreme Court to place all of its
decisions online, going back to the founding of the country? Those
rulings, after all, are the law of the land. Currently, less than a
decades worth of decisions are made available on the Supreme Courts
- Would she support placing all merits and certiorari
briefs on the Supreme Courts web site, so that citizens can read all
the arguments made before the Court, and not just the Courts final
decisions? The Court does not make any of these briefs available on its
web site now, and has asked the American Bar Association to publish the
merits briefs on the ABAs web site.
- Would she support making available a contemporaneous transcript of
the days oral arguments, including audio recordings of the arguments?
If so, would she agree to publish the recordings on the Courts
website? Eventually, the National Archives releases audio recordings of
arguments that took place before the Court, but not until the start of
the next Term in October. However, on a few occasions, the Court has
made audio of oral arguments available on the same day the arguments
took place. It could do so on a regular basis, and place those audio
recordings on its web site.
- Would she advocate that the federal courts should make available
online and at no charge all proceedings before the Court (filings,
orders, opinions, etc.), instead of the current PACER system which
charges users to view these public documents?
Come to think of it, the answer she gave on cameras pretty well covers all these items. From those comments we can assume, I think, that if and when the moment comes to consider them, she will be on the side of accessan empathetic advocate.
Cameras should be in every Courtroom. Allowing any Internet user and news media to pick up the feed.
It would put a stop to all the back room deals made by Judges between attorneys while the client is left sitting the Courtroom and knows nothing that is being said. I believe everything said should be said from the bench and in open Court for everyone to hear.
The “Justice for all” sign on the Court house might just begin to take on the meaning of “Justice”.