[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 97 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7030-S7031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment 
briefly on the pending nomination of Judge Sotomayor to be an Associate 
Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.
  I have made it a practice to write to nominees in advance of the 
hearings in order to give advance notice to the nominee so that the 
nominee will be in a position to respond to questions raised without 
going back to read cases or consider the issues and facilitate the 
proceeding. I commented to Judge Sotomayor, when she had the so-called 
courtesy call with me, that I would be doing that.
  In a letter dated June 15, I wrote her and commented about it in a 
floor statement, discussing in some detail the qualifications of Judge 
Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.
  To briefly recapitulate, I noted in my earlier floor statement her 
excellent academic record and highest rankings in Princeton 
undergraduate and Yale Law School, her work as an assistant district 
attorney, her professional experience with a major law firm, her tenure 
on the Federal trial court, and her current tenure on the Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  Today, I am writing to Judge Sotomayor to give her advance notice 
that I will be inquiring into her views on televising the Supreme 
Court. I have long advocated televising the proceedings of the Supreme 
Court and have introduced legislation to require that, subject to a 
decision by the Court on a particular case if they thought the Court 
ought not to be televised. I think the analogy is very apt to 
televising proceedings of the Senate or the House of Representatives so 
that the public may be informed as to what is going on with these 
public matters.
  The arguments in the Supreme Court are open to the public. Only a 
very few people have an opportunity to see them. First, it is not easy 
to come to Washington and, second, there are so many people who do come 
to Washington, but they are only allowed to be in there but a few 
minutes. With the marvel of television, this proceeding appears in the 
homes of many Americans on C-SPAN2, the House is televised on C-SPAN1, 
and many of our hearings are similarly televised. That is a great 
educational tool, and also it shows what is going on.
  The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 1980 decision, Richmond 
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, noted that a public trial belongs not 
just to the accused but to the public and the press as well. The 
Supreme Court noted that such openness has ``long been recognized as an 
indisputable attribute of an Anglo-American trial.''
  Chief Justice William Howard Taft put the issue into perspective, 
stating:

       Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their 
     decisions and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than 
     the consciousness that every act of theirs is subject to the 
     intelligent scrutiny of their fellow men and to candid 
     criticism.

  In the same vein, Justice Felix Frankfurter said:

       If the news media would cover the Supreme Court as 
     thoroughly as it did the World Series, it would be very 
     important since ``public confidence in the judiciary hinges 
     on the public's perception of it.''


[[Page S7031]]


  The term ``press'' used in Richmond Newspapers would comprehend 
television in modern days. And certainly Justice Frankfurter's use of 
the term ``media'' would comprehend television as well.
  It is worth noting that Justices have frequently appeared on 
television. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Stevens appeared on 
``Prime Time,'' ABC TV. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's interview on CBS 
by Mike Wallace was televised. Justice Breyer participated in Fox News 
Sunday and a debate between Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer was 
filmed and available for viewing on the Web.
  There is no doubt of the enormous public interest in what the Supreme 
Court does. When the case of Bush v. Gore was decided, the block 
surrounding the Supreme Court Chamber, just across the green from the 
Senate, was loaded with television trucks. Although the cameras could 
not get inside, there was tremendous public concern. The decisions of 
the Court are on all of the cutting edge issues of the day. The Court 
decides executive power, congressional power, defendants' rights, 
habeas corpus, Guantanamo, civil rights, voting rights, affirmative 
action, abortion, and the list could go on and on.
  In both the 109th and 110th Congresses, I introduced legislation 
calling for the Court to be televised. Twice it was reported favorably 
out of committee, but neither time did it reach the floor of the 
Senate. I intend to reintroduce the legislation and I intend to pursue 
it.
  A number of Justices have commented about television. Justice Stevens 
said he favors televising the Supreme Court. He thinks, as he put it, 
``it is worth a try.'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she would 
support television and cameras as long as it was gavel to gavel. 
Justice Alito, in his Senate confirmation hearing, noted that when he 
was on the Third Circuit, he voted in favor of televising the 
proceedings, but had a reservation, saying if confirmed, he would want 
to consult with his colleagues about it. Justice Kennedy has said that 
he thinks televising the Court is inevitable. Chief Justice Roberts 
left the question open.
  There is an obvious sensitivity in the Court if a colleague 
strenuously objects, and such a vociferous objection has been lodged by 
Justice Souter, who was quoted as saying, ``I can tell you the day you 
see a camera come into our courtroom, it is going to roll over my dead 
body.'' That is quite a dramatic statement. Justice Souter has 
announced his retirement. Perhaps in the absence of that strenuous 
objection, it is a good time for the Court to reconsider the issue.
  I intend to ask Judge Sotomayor in her confirmation hearing whether 
she agrees with Justice Stevens that televising the Supreme Court is 
worth a try, whether she agrees with Justice Breyer that televising 
judicial proceedings is a valuable teaching device, whether she agrees 
with Justice Kennedy that televising the Court is inevitable. She can 
shed some light on the issue, because her courtroom was part of a pilot 
program where it was televised. There was a program from 1991 through 
1994, where the Judicial Conference evaluated a pilot program conducted 
in six Federal district courts and 2 Federal circuits, and they found:

       Overall, attitudes of judges toward electronic media 
     coverage of civil proceedings were initially neutral and 
     became more favorable after experience under the pilot 
     program.

  The Judicial Center also stated:

       Judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic 
     media coverage under the program generally reported observing 
     small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the 
     proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of 
     justice.

  I think that is a very solid step forth from some of the Justices who 
have expressed concern that the dynamics of the Court would be changed. 
With the ability to put a camera in a concealed position and the 
findings of the Judicial Center that is a solid argument in favor of 
proceeding and, to repeat, I will continue to press the issue; and the 
confirmation proceedings of Judge Sotomayor will be a good opportunity 
to ask her about her experience when she presided over the trial under 
the pilot program, and to further develop the issue and perhaps 
stimulate some more public interest.
  I commend to the attention of my colleagues the report of the 
Judiciary Committee on the legislation I had introduced in the 110th 
Congress. I cite Calendar No. 907, Senate Report 110-448 to Accompany 
S. 344, ``A Bill to Permit the Televising of Supreme Court 
Proceedings.'' It is lengthy, but I think it has a good summary to 
supplement the remarks that I have made to acquaint the public with the 
issue and the importance of it.

                          ____________________