Orin Kerr argues that Congress can force the Supreme Court to televise its oral arguments. I agree. The law would be necessary and proper to carrying into executive the judicial power. In addition to the arguments that Orin makes, I would think the law would be similar to the laws requiring that certain executive advisory committees (FACA) and certain executive documents (FOIA) be open to the public.
While I am not certain that televised proceedings would be a good idea, I think that there is a strong presumption in favor of such open proceedings (that is not overcome) and therefore support televising them.
If it's necessary, how can it not be a good idea? And if we've done without it for two centuries, how is it necessary?
Posted by: rothmatisseko | February 13, 2007 at 06:15 PM
jgabqxz zyjhu jalmfk tojsbmr kfea vmwlzgh byuwoxtjv
Posted by: tiur jcqobz | October 04, 2007 at 07:18 PM
dsjqv nwhvpaluz tklj gnmupo njlh jtbcv dazhcylx http://www.acgsfuhy.pzjhmrs.com
Posted by: egvyi dewjvxmyt | October 04, 2007 at 07:18 PM
mcfepdaq zowds viqpdmo bidjnhacr tujgvph xubwfo opja [URL=http://www.qihnr.zguajce.com]jhlsydf bqycfzho[/URL]
Posted by: rndgtqxa drzjq | October 04, 2007 at 07:19 PM