Originally Posted - October 15, 2005

return home

Too bad that Antonin Scalia isn't a member of the New York State Bar Association.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia has an unhealthy attitude towards judicial accountability and cameras in the courtroom. He needs to learn that that black dress he has makes him just a judge, not a dictator and that he has a responsibility and obligation to be accountable to the public. Because of his position, Scalia must meet an even higher standard of accountability instead of trying to shut out all public review of how the judges in our courts are reaching their arbitrary decisions, how they are rewriting the Constitution and engaging in prohibited judicial activism which is being increasingly challenged by the public.

We think he'd learn a lot and get a whole different perspective if he attends the upcoming conference on cameras in the court being co-sponsored by the NYSBA.

Not only does Scalia bar television cameras from most of his public appearances and speeches, but he is adamantly opposed to televising Supreme Court sessions.

Scalia is only one vote and let's hope he's in the minority. After all, the new Chief Justice John Roberts has already said that he's in favor of televised proceedings.

Seems Scalia doesn't want himself and his brethren to be accountable---doesn't want the public to know about the workings of the court----and we think that's dangerous. Why doesn't a Supreme Court justice want to the public to see how they reach their life-changing decisions?

John R. Dunne of Albany, former chairman of the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee, should issue an open and public invitation for Scalia to attend the program that the NYSBA is co-hosting in Albany with the Fund for Modern Courts, "Witness to Justice: Reopening New York State Courtrooms to Camera Coverage".

The program on cameras in the courtroom will be held Tuesday, Oct. 25 at the State Bar Center in Albany.

Let the public be a witness to justice, Mr. Scalia. Let the public watch how you make your decisions. Stop hiding under that black robe and let the public observe the proceedings of the Supreme Court and other state and federal courts.

Scalia told CNBC recently that he was adamantly opposed to televising Supreme Court sessions saying that he didn't want the courtroom to "become entertainment". Apparently he doesn't like Court TV. Maybe he thinks someone will liken him to Judge Judy.

"I think there's something sick about making entertainment out of real people's legal problems", Scalia said. "I don't like it in the lower courts and I don't particularly like it in the Supreme Court".

Last year, federal marshals, presumably acting on the orders of Scalia, confiscated and erased recordings made by two reporters of a speech he made at Mississippi high school. He later apologized. Big deal. Shouldn't have happened in the first place. That was a total abuse of his position and a violation of the reporters' constitutional rights.

As one reporter stated, Scalia---who claims that the Constitution is a living document, subject to constant change--engaged in the ultimate Constitutional irony, extolling the Constitution and its First Amendment while ordering the seizure of the reporters' tape recorders.

'In what can be only described as an ultimate Constitutional irony, Scalia was praising the Constitution and its First Amendment while a federal marshal harassed reporters and curtailed their right to gather news at a public appearance,' said Joel Campell, the Society of Professional Journalists' Freedom of Information Committee co-chair.

Scalia even banned cameras from a 2003 ceremony in Ohio in which he was being honored for supporting free speech. What???? It's not supportive of the First Amendment to ban the public from a public function. That's almost like discrimination because it seems to be his position that if you can't be physically present and hear the function firsthand, you can't see it. As Terry Murphy opined, vice president and executive producer for C-SPAN, the presenter of the award, "how free is speech if there are limits to its distribution?"

We personally think that Scalia's position on judicial accountability and in particular, his personal accountability as a justice of the nation's highest court, is an embarrassment to the entire judiciary.

This past week, Scalia shut out journalists from a speech he was giving to life insurance executives and during arguments in a free speech case, Scalia talked about gossip-seeking reporters. Is Scalia's trying to control how the press covers events?

Seems that Scalia was telling the insurance chiefs about his approach to interpreting the Constitution---probably didn't want those pesky reporters to record his Byzantine approach to First Amendment issues and accountability of the court.

Legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., that would allow sessions of the U.S. Supreme Court to be televised rather than just audio-taped as is now the practice.

What's the matter, Mr. Scalia, camera shy?

We think Scalia would get a lot out of the NYSBA-Modern Courts program.

The Fund for Modern Courts, founded in 1955, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, statewide organization that strives to improve the administration and quality of justice in New York courts.

In 2001, the association adopted the recommendations of its Special Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom, chaired by Vincent Buzard, NYSBA president, to permit audio-visual coverage of judicial proceedings with adequate safeguards, but without requiring consent of either the defense or the prosecution. The State Bar has supported efforts to bring cameras into the courtroom since 1979.

The State Bar has formed a new task force to find and implement ways to increase television coverage of proceedings in the appellate courts. The task force will look to increase television coverage of all court proceedings that are not currently prohibited by law, investigate why there hasn't been more broadcast coverage of appellate and other proceedings and work to remove such impediments.

Gee, is one of the impediments to cameras in the court that they seek to remove Antonin Scalia?

The Court of Appeals decision to uphold the ban on cameras in trial courts stated that the issue was ripe for legislative - and not judicial - review. According to Buzard, the NYSBA will renew its efforts to convince the Legislature to repeal the ban.

Legislation that permitted an experimental period of audio-visual coverage in trial courts expired in 1997. New York is one of the few states to ban camera coverage of most trial court proceedings.

New York Courts and their judges are archaic in their efforts to impede judicial accountability and so is Antonin Scalia.

The purpose of Specter's legislation is to open the Supreme Court doors so that more Americans can see the process by which the Court reaches critical decisions of law that affect this country and everyday Americans. Because the Supreme Court of the United States holds power to decide cutting-edge questions on public policy, thereby effectively becoming a virtual 'super legislature,' the public has a right to know what the Supreme Court----and Antonin Scalia--- is doing.

And that right would be substantially enhanced by televising the oral arguments of the Court so that the public can see and hear the issues presented to the Court. With this information, the public would have insight into key issues and be better equipped to understand the impact of the Court's decisions."
10-15-05

© 2005 North Country Gazette