Scurbag republicans chip away at constitutionally-protected free speech.

[kenny]

North Korea/Russia/fascism here we come.

Reporters Challenge New Restrictions In Trying To Cover Senate Impeachment Trial

Authorities are cracking down on the places correspondents may go, with whom they may talk and for how long. News outlets don't want to go along.

www.npr.org

Of course the right will repeal all this when the next democrat is impeached.

What a dishonest and revolting group of people!

 

[Karl_K]

ha the Supreme Court bans media from much of the building and bans electronics including cameras and phones in the court room.

"News broadcasts, stand-ups, and interviews on Court-related topics are permissible on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building if prior clearance is obtained through the Public

Information Office. News broadcasts, stand-ups, and interviews are not permitted within the building, including the pressroom, or elsewhere on Court grounds. "

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/PIOServices.pdf

Which constitutional right is being violated again?

 

[the_mother_thing]

GOOD!

I hope they enact stricter rules & access to non-press as well so this doesn’t turn into another three-ring circus (e.g. Kav’s confirmation) with all the mindless, robotic protestors chanting in hallways, ignorant mid-hearing outbursts, and accosting members in hallways & elevators. Perhaps if more people could act respectfully in public and government buildings, such measures wouldn’t be needed.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I don't see this action as a threat to free speech. This is a trial. The Senators are the Jury. They will be under a code of silence themselves. No talking during the trial. Do reporters get to interview jurors at lunch break, during the normal course of a trial? Of course not. Let the reporters take copious notes and phone their stories in to their papers as they often do. I think a no comment from the jurors is warranted. I also want them to be able to deliberate in secret. No glaring eyes.

Annette

 

[Tekate]

Do't forget the put the "IMHO" or "IMO" because I supported the protesters and still to this day. I look forward to either adding another justice (or 2) under democrats or impeaching Gorsach and Kavanaugh, but this my opinion only. It's hard to get respect if a politician does not give it. IMO

GOOD!

I hope they enact stricter rules & access to non-press as well so this doesn’t turn into another three-ring circus (e.g. Kav’s confirmation) with all the mindless, robotic protestors chanting in hallways, ignorant mid-hearing outbursts, and accosting members in hallways & elevators. Perhaps if more people could act respectfully in public and government buildings, such measures wouldn’t be needed.

 

[Tekate]

And they shouldn't we should all be allowed to watch a presentation of cases to the Supreme Court, there is nothing special about them. Open the gates and let US the taxpayers see what goes on, I am so tired of charactertures of court.

ha the Supreme Court bans media from much of the building and bans electronics including cameras and phones in the court room.

"News broadcasts, stand-ups, and interviews on Court-related topics are permissible on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building if prior clearance is obtained through the Public

Information Office. News broadcasts, stand-ups, and interviews are not permitted within the building, including the pressroom, or elsewhere on Court grounds. "

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/PIOServices.pdf

Which constitutional right is being violated again?

 

[Calliecake]

Do't forget the put the "IMHO" or "IMO" because I supported the protesters and still to this day. I look forward to either adding another justice (or 2) under democrats or impeaching Gorsach and Kavanaugh, but this my opinion only. It's hard to get respect if a politician does not give it. IMO

I’m right there with you @Tekate .

 

[the_mother_thing]

@Tekate Stating "I hope..." implies that it is my opinion. It is also my opinion that the rest of your post is not likely to happen, but we can all dream, I suppose.

 

[Tekate]

Always for you too, I can't spell it seems.. caricature ! used to be a great speller, I knew when I wrote it that it was incorrect but forgot to fix it. xo

I’m right there with you @Tekate .

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

FYI--- Transcripts of Supreme Court Oral Arguments are available at the end of the day presented They are free and can be found on the website of the Supreme Ct.

A recording of the Oral Presentation can be gotten for free on the Friday of the week presented.

The Supreme Court is different than lower courts. Its an appellate court and as such is reviewing the actions of the lower court. There are no witnesses, just a pro and con of what is wrong with the lower court ruling. It preserves a certain sanctity by restricting access and by so doing allows for questions and answers from litigants in a serious environment.

Annette

 

[MollyMalone]

I have some reservations about the live broadcasts of trials, but am comfortable with appellate courthouse presentations being truly aired. Historically speaking, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices through the years have believed that minuses outweigh the pluses.

But now there's much more of a track record elsewhere for them to consider. Most, if not all, appellate courts in the 50 states live-stream oral arguments, or at least the oral arguments in their state's highest court, even in states where the high court judges are elected (which is an awful way imo to select appellate judges). The videos are then usually archived on the courts' websites for viewing by those who didn't tune in as an argument was taking place. As someones who's presented numerous oral arguments before, and since, New York's appellate courts began "broadcasting," I would say there's been no difference in the courtroom environment. There have always been some lawyers who "grandstand" for their client and/or the client's family -- or the press (NY has not flatly banned reporters from appellate courtrooms in decades, if ever). But grandstanding does not sit well with the judges. Nor does it earn those attorneys referrals from other, appeal-savvy lawyers.

A couple of positives that are attributable to the easy accessibility of oral arguments:

• For lawyers who have not recently appeared before an appellate court but have an upcoming oral argument, the videos are a great way to get an informed sense of what it will be like.
• It's educational for members of the public inclined to watch one or more arguments in their entirety. Though it would be useful if there were some sort of explanatory preamble, e.g., don't expect to learn much during an oral argument about the facts of a case; how it's different from a debate; if the judges ask more questions of one side than the other, that doesn't mean the side that's pressed harder is going to lose.

Yes, the videos can be a source of sound bites, which can be aggravatingly misleading/distorted. But print and oral sound bites happen now in the absence of cameras and recorders in the US Supreme Court's courtroom. I think it would be great if there were a US Supreme Court channel so that people could more readily see the Court in action -- and better appreciate how much of their caseload is devoted to matters that are not the subject of general public controversy. (And yep, I appreciate that this is an idyllic perspective.)

 

[JPie]

Has anyone been keeping up with the impeachment trial? It's stunning how Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow show no qualms about telling bold-faced lies. The most depressing part is that Trump supporters will swallow this tripe and regurgitate it to anyone who'll listen. It's not about the truth anymore.

Trump’s lawyers began the impeachment trial with a blizzard of lies

The opening statements from Trump’s lawyers indicated that gaslighting will be a key part of their strategy.

www.vox.com