Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This guy sure has a way with words. :) Sue Souter says no to cameras in court No matter how the question is asked, Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter has the same answer on whether television cameras will be allowed into the nation's highest court: Forget it. "I'm very protective of the processes of the Supreme Court and I don't want them compromised," Souter told members of a House Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday. He and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy appeared before the panel to outline the Supreme Court's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Souter told the same panel two years ago, "The day you see a camera come into our courtroom it's going to roll over my dead body." He contends televising court arguments would inhibit the justices' questioning of lawyers for fear their questions might be taken out of context on the evening news. It also might encourage grandstanding by lawyers, he said. Rep. Julian Dixon, D-Calif,. asked Souter if he opposed allowing cameras in federal trial courts if the Supreme Court was exempt. Souter said he would oppose that, adding, "I don't think we need any extended argument today to point out the effect these cameras can have on a live trial." The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., asked whether the Supreme Court could videotape its argument sessions and release the tapes later. "I don't see that that would make very much difference" even if the videotapes were released several weeks later, Souter said. The high court does audiotape its arguments, and those tapes are made publicly available after each term. But Souter said he thought videotapes could be misused in a way audiotapes are not. Rogers asked, how about live radio broadcasts of Supreme Court arguments? No, Souter said. That would allow "editing down to the sound bite, to the two-second clip," he said. Perhaps videotapes could be made and released at the end of each year's term, Rogers suggested. It wouldn't work in the real world, Souter said. "Within a year or two the tape would be out of the courtroom in time for the 6 o'clock news," the justice said. "I wouldn't run that risk." Lawyers' arguments to the high court are not always of the highest quality, Souter noted, adding that not everyone is up to the standard of the late Solicitor General Rex Lee. Perhaps it might help if lawyers could see videotapes of high-quality arguments, Rogers suggested. "Not if they're not Rex Lee," Souter shot back. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
