[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 23, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5296-S5299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF ELENA KAGAN
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on
the range of questions for Solicitor General Kagan on her forthcoming
hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Solicitor General Kagan has issued a fairly broad invitation, in
effect, on questioning. In an article that she published in the Chicago
Law Review back in 1995, her comment at that time was, in part, as
follows:
When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful
discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on
an air of vacuity . . . and the Senate becomes incapable of
either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately
educating the public. For nominees, the safest and surest
route to the prize lay in alternating platitudinous
statements and judicial silence. Who would have done anything
different in the absence of pressure from Members of
Congress?
That is a fair-sized invitation for a little pressure from Members of
the Senate. I think she is right in her pronouncements, and it is
something we ought to do. She goes on to write in the law review
article:
Chairman Biden and Senator Specter, in particular,
expressed impatience with the game as played. Specter warned
that the Judiciary Committee one day would ``rear up on its
hind legs'' and reject a nominee who refused to answer
questions. Senators do not insist that any nominee reveal
what kind of a Justice she would make by disclosing her views
on important legal issues. Senators have not done so since
the hearings on the nomination of Judge Bork.
Solicitor General Kagan goes on to write:
A nominee lacking a public record would have an advantage
over a highly prolific author.
There has been some questioning as to whether this nominee has such a
small paper trail that it will be doubly difficult, or significantly
more difficult, to find out her views. But in her law review article,
noting the difference with that kind of a paper trail is, again,
another invitation.
The author of the law review article, Solicitor General Kagan, goes
on to write:
The Senators' consideration of a nominee, and particularly
the Senate's confirmation hearing, ought to focus on
substantive issues.
Well, that, then, raises the question about how do you get answers on
substantive issues, and what is the value of the substantive issues
when the nominee, after being confirmed, is on the bench?
Earlier this week, I made an extensive statement reviewing the
records of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in their
confirmation hearings. Although both professed to give great deference
to Congress on findings of the facts of the record, when it came to
making a decision--for example, in Citizens United--their judicial
views were much different.
Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito talked at length about
how it was the legislative function to have hearings, compile the
record and find the facts; that it was not a judicial function, and
that when judges engaged in that, they were engaging in legislation.
But when it came to the case of Citizens United, overturning a century
of a prohibition on corporations engaging in paying for political
advertising, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito found the
100,000-page record insufficient. Both of them talked about stare
decisis and the value of precedent and the factors that led to the
strengthening of stare decisis. Chief Justice Roberts spoke
emphatically about not giving the legal system a ``jolt.'' Well, that
is hardly what has happened during their tenure on the bench.
So the question which we will put to Solicitor General Kagan, among
others, is, How does Congress get those promises translated into actual
practice? And in making the comments about Chief Justice Roberts and
Justice Alito, I do so without challenging their good faith. There is a
big difference between answering questions in a Judiciary Committee
hearing and deciding a case in controversy. But the question remains as
to how we handle that.
As expressed in my statement earlier this week, I am very much
concerned about the fact that there has been a denigration of the
strong constitutional doctrine of separation of power and that we have
moved to a concentration of power. That has happened by the Supreme
Court taking on the proportionality and congruence test, which, as
Justice Scalia noted in a dissent, is a ``flabby'' test designed for
judicial legislation.
The Court has also ceded enormous powers to the executive by refusing
to decide cases where there are conflicts between the executive and
legislative branches. I spoke at length earlier this week about the
failure of the Supreme Court to deal with the conflict between
Congress's Article I powers in enacting the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act versus the President's authority as Commander in
Chief. I did that in the context of noting that the Supreme Court has
time for deciding many more cases.
These are, I think, impressive statistics. In 1886, the Supreme Court
had 1,396 cases on its docket and decided 451 cases. In 1987, a century
later, the Supreme Court issued 146 opinions. By 2006, the Supreme
Court heard argument on 78 cases, wrote opinions in 68. In 2007, they
heard argument in 75 cases, wrote opinions in 67 cases. In 2008, they
heard arguments in 78 cases, wrote opinions in 75 cases.
In addition to not deciding cases such as the terrorist surveillance
program and the sovereign immunities case, which I talked about
extensively earlier this week, the Supreme Court has allowed many
circuit splits to remain unchecked. There is an informative article in
the July/August 2006 edition of the Atlantic entitled ``Of Clerks and
Perks,'' written by Stuart Taylor, Jr. and Benjamin Wittes. In that
article, the authors point out about how much time the Supreme Court
Justices have, noting that one Justice produced four popular books on
legal themes while on the bench, another is working on a $1.5 million
memoir, and another Justice took 28 trips in 2004 alone and published
books in 2002, 2003, and 2005.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the full article to which I just referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Atlantic, July/August 2006]
Of Clerks and Perks
why supreme court justices have more free time than ever--and why it
should be taken away
(By Stuart Taylor Jr. and Benjamin Wittes)
There are few jobs as powerful as that of Supreme Court
justice--and few jobs as cushy. Many powerful people don't
have time for extracurricular traveling, speaking, and
writing, let alone for three-month summer recesses. Yet the
late Chief Justice William Rehnquist produced four popular
books on legal themes while serving on the bench. Clarence
Thomas has been working on a $1.5 million memoir. And Sandra
Day O'Connor, who retired to general adulation, took twenty-
eight paid trips in 2004 alone, and published books in 2002,
2003, and 2005.
All this freelancing time breeds high-handedness. Ruth
Bader Ginsburg tars those who disagree with her enthusiasm
for foreign law with the taint of apartheid and Dred Scott;
Antonin Scalia calls believers in an evolving Constitution
``idiots,'' and carries on a public feud with a newspaper
over whether a dismissive gesture he made after Sunday Mass--
flicking fingers out from under his chin--was obscene.
Meanwhile, on the bench the justices behave like a continuing
constitutional convention, second-guessing elected officials
on issues from school discipline to the outcome of the 2000
election, while leaving unresolved important, if dust-dry,
legal questions that are largely invisible to the public.
Many lawmakers are keen to push back against a self-
regarding Supreme Court, but all of the obvious levers at
their disposal involve serious assaults on judicial
independence--a cure that's worse than the disease of
judicial unaccountability. The Senate has already politicized
the confirmation process beyond redemption, and attacking the
federal courts' jurisdiction, impeaching judges, and
squeezing judicial budgets are all bludgeons that legislators
have historically avoided, and for good reason.
So what's an exasperated Congress to do? We have a modest
proposal: let's fire their clerks.
Eliminating the law clerks would force the justices to
focus more on legal analysis and, we can hope, less on their
own policy agendas. It would leave them little time for silly
speeches. It would make them more ``independent'' than they
really want to be, by ending their debilitating reliance on
twentysomething law-school graduates. Perhaps best of all, it
would effectively shorten their tenure by forcing them to do
their own work, making their jobs harder and inducing them to
retire before power corrupts absolutely or decrepitude sets
in.
[[Page S5297]]
No justice worth his or her salt should need a bunch of
kids who have never (or barely) practiced law to draft
opinions for him or her. Yet that is exactly what the Court
now has--four clerks in each chamber to handle the lightest
caseload in modern history. The justices--who, unlike lower-
court judges, don't have to hear any case they don't wish
to--have cut their number of full decisions by more than
half, from over 160 in 1945 to about 80 today. During the
same period they have quadrupled their retinue of clerks.
Because Supreme Court clerks generally follow a strict code
of omerta, the individual justices' dependence on them is
hard to document. But some have reportedly delegated a
shocking amount of the actual opinion writing to their
clerks.
Justice Harry Blackman's papers show that, especially in
his later years, clerks did most of the opinion writing and
the justice often did little more than minor editing, as well
as checking the accuracy of spelling and citations. Ginsburg,
Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy reportedly have clerks write most
or all of their first drafts--according to more or less
detailed instructions--and often make few substantial
changes. Some of O'Connor's clerks have suggested that she
rarely touched clerk drafts; others say she sometimes did
substantial rewrites, depending on the opinion.
There's no reason why seats on the highest court in the
land, which will always offer their occupants great power and
prestige, should also allow them to delegate the detailed
writing to smart but unseasoned underlings. Any competent
justice should be able to handle more than the current
average of about nine majority opinions a year. And those who
don't want to work hard ought to resign in favor of people
who do.
Cutting the clerks out of the writing will also improve the
justices' decision- making, by forcing them to think issues
through. As the eighty-six-year-old John Paul Stevens, the
only justice who habitually writes his own first drafts, once
told the journalist Tony Mauro: ``Part of the reason [I write
my own drafts] is for self-discipline . . . I don't really
understand a case until I write it out.''
This is not to suggest that the justices should have to
spend their time on scut work--reading all 8,000 petitions
for review filed in a typical year, or hitting the library to
dig up obscure precedents. These are the tasks that law
clerks used to do. And this sort of thing is all they will
have time to do if Congress cuts each justice's clerk
complement from four back to one, as legal historian David
Garrow has suggested.
For much of American history, the life of a justice was
something of a grind. Watching the strutting pomposity of
modern justices, this ``original understanding'' of the job--
as a grueling immersion in cases, briefs, and scholarship--
seems increasingly attractive.
Justice Louis Brandeis once said that the reason for the
Supreme Court justices' relatively high prestige was that
``they are almost the only people in Washington who do their
own work.'' That was true then. It should be true again.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this raises the issue about deciding
these cases where the workload is not very high, where there is a
recess of some 3 months, extensive travels, and extensive lectures. Now
they may do what they please, and they will, but there is a balance
here. The question is: How do you get more cases decided? How do you
deal with the question of having the Justices put into practice, once
they are on the bench, what they are talking about in the confirmation
hearings? That is hard to determine.
The best way, in my view, and I have spoken about this in some
length, is by publicizing their failures. I think when we take up their
budget, for example, it is fair to consider how many clerks they need,
given their workload. The number started at one, went to two and three,
and is now at four. Is it fair to consider the recess period? In
evaluating their budget, we have to be very careful not to intrude upon
judicial independence, which is the hallmark of our Republic. But on
the issue of publicizing what the Court does, I think it is fair game;
preeminently reasonable.
For decades now, I have been pressing to have the Supreme Court
proceedings televised. Only a very limited number of people can fit
inside the chamber--a couple of hundred; less than 300. People are
permitted to stay there for only 3 or 4 minutes. Twice the Judiciary
Committee has passed out legislation by substantial margins--12-6, and
in the current term 13-6--calling on the Supreme Court to be televised.
When the case of Bush v. Gore was argued, Senator Biden and I wrote
to the Chief Justice asking that the television cameras be permitted to
come in. The Chief Justice declined, but did--in a rather unusual way--
authorize a simultaneous audio.
There have been continuing efforts by C-SPAN to have more access to
the Court, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a
document entitled ``C-SPAN Timeline: Cameras in the Court'' at the
conclusion of this presentation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I don't have time to go into it now,
with the limited time available, but the reader of the Congressional
Record can see how frequently the Court has denied access to even the
audio.
It is a matter of general knowledge that the Supreme Court Justices
engage in television interviews with some frequency. Justice Scalia,
for example, appeared on the CBS News program ``60 Minutes'' on April
27 of 2008; Justice Thomas was on ``60 Minutes'' on September 30, 2007;
Justices Breyer and Scalia have engaged in several televised debates,
including a debate on December 5, 2006. All Justices have sat for
television interviews conducted by C-SPAN.
A point I have made with some frequency on the floor of the Senate is
the great importance of the Supreme Court in our government. The
Supreme Court has the final word. There is nothing in the Constitution
which gives the Supreme Court the final word, but they took it in the
celebrated case of Marbury v. Madison, and I believe it has been for
the betterment of the country. You find the inability of the Congress
to act. The most noteworthy illustration of that was segregation, for
years the practice in this country. The executive branch did not handle
it, but the Court was able to integrate our schools in a recognition of
the changing values and the flexible interpretation of a living
Constitution.
It is often said that the Court is not final because they are right,
but they are right because they are final. Somebody has to make these
final decisions, and I think the Court should do it. But I do believe
it is of great value if the people in this country understood what the
Court is deciding.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a statement of some 11 cases entitled ``List of Cutting-Edge
Decisions of the Roberts' Court.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
List of Cutting-Edge Decisions of the Roberts Court
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). A
five-four majority of the Court struck down as facially
unconstitutional section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act,
despite an extensive body of Congressional findings, two
Supreme Court precedents explicitly uphold section 203
(Austin (1990) and McConnell (2003)), and prohibition on
corporation money in federal elections stretching back to
1907.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School
District No. 1 (2007). In a 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice
Roberts, the Court struck down narrowly tailored race-
conscious remedial plans adopted by two local boards designed
to maintain racially integrated school districts, contrary to
a ``longstanding and unbroken line of legal authority tells
us that the Equal Protection Clause [of the Fourteenth
Amendment] permits local school boards to use race-conscious
criteria to achieve positive race-related goals, even when
the Constitution does not compel it.''
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. (2007). In a
5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that an
individual taxpayer did not have standing to challenge the
constitutionality of government expenditures to religious
organizations under the Bush administration's ``faith-based
initiatives'' program. That conclusion ran counter to a four-
decade-old precedent holding that taxpayers have standing to
challenge federal expenditures as violative of the
Establishment Clause (Flast v. Cohen (1968)).
Morse v. Frederick, (2007). In a 5-4 opinion by Chief
Justice Roberts, the Court held that the suspension of high
school students for displaying a banner across the street
from their school that read ``BONG Hits 4 JESUS'' did not
violate the First Amendment. That holding ran counter to a
long-standing precedent, Tinker (1969), which held
unconstitutional the discipline of a public-school student
for engaging in First Amendment-protected speech unless it
disrupts school activities.
Penn Plaza, LLC v. Pyett (2009). In a 5-4 opinion by
Justice Thomas, the Court upended the Court's unanimous 1974
decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974), which
held that an employee cannot be compelled to arbitrate a
statutory discrimination claim under a collectively
bargained-for arbitration clause to which he did not consent.
The Court held otherwise in Pyett, thereby depriving many
employees of their right to bring statutory discrimination
claims in federal court.
[[Page S5298]]
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS (2007). In a
5-4 opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court overturned a
century-old precedent holding that vertical price-fixing
agreements per-se violate the federal antitrust laws.
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Lift
(2007). In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Roberts, the Court ruled
that the McCain-Feingold Act's limitations on political
advertising were unconstitutional as they applied to issue
ads like WRTL's (which in this case encouraged viewers to
contact two U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose filibusters
of judicial nominees). Justice Scalia went so far as to
accuse Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito of practicing
what he called ``faux judicial restraining'' by effectively
overruling McConnell (2003) ``without expressly saying so.''
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder
(2009). An opinion by Chief Justice Roberts discussed whether
the 2006 extension of 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was
supported by an adequate legislative record. Although the
court ultimately decided the case on a narrow statutory
ground, Roberts made clear that he was disinclined to accept
Congress's legislative finding as to the need for Sec. 5,
despite an extensive record amassed over ten months in 21
hearings.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (2007). In a
5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court ruled that
Ledbetter's employment discrimination claim was time-barred
by Title VII's limitations period, despite the fact that she
had only recently found out that the discrimination was
occurring.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
(2007). In these decisions, the Court fundamentally changed
the long-standing rules of pleadings under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure while refusing to acknowledge that a
change had been made. These decisions created a heightened
pleading standard that may impair the ability of American to
access the courts.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), In a 5-4 decision,
the Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an
individual right to bear arms unconnected with service in a
state militia, and, in doing, struck down a District of
Columbia gun control law that had been in place for over
three decades. The majority and minority opinion diverged
sharply on the framer's original understanding of the Second
Amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. There is insufficient time to go over them now, but most
of them are 5-4 decisions. The Supreme Court decides everything from
life to death, Roe vs. Wade to the death penalty cases and double
jeopardy. These cases involve the integration issue, religious freedom,
freedom of speech, collective bargaining, the antitrust laws, and all
of the cutting-edge questions are decided.
It is my hope that we will find time on the Senate's agenda--with as
many quorum calls as we have had we ought to find some time--to take up
the issue of televising the Supreme Court. And as we approach next
Monday's hearings on Solicitor General Kagan, we will be pursuing these
very important issues.
In the remaining time available, one other matter which I wish to
comment about--and I have sent Solicitor General Kagan three letters
setting forth the areas of questioning which I intend to make--is a
remarkable, perhaps unprecedented, action by the Supreme Court
invalidating the Arizona clean elections law.
Arizona set up a law to provide matching funds. The District Court in
Arizona declared it unconstitutional, but the Ninth Circuit overturned
the district court. The district court had issued an injunction--that
is, to prevent the law from being carried out--on matching funds. The
Ninth Circuit reversed that. The Supreme Court--in an unusual decision,
to put it mildly--earlier this month, on June 8, put the injunction
back into effect.
This is in the context where there hasn't even been a petition for
certiorari filed. The regular practice--the regular order--is a
petition for cert, briefs, argument. That is the way cases are decided.
But here, in the wake of Citizens United, invalidating a key part of
McCain-Feingold, we have the Supreme Court invalidating the Arizona law
without even the customary procedures.
All of this is in the face of congressional action and action by
states to try to respond to public opinion. A recent Hart poll showed
that some 95 percent of the American people think that corporations
make contributions to exert political influence, and 85 percent of the
people feel that corporations ought not to be able to contribute to
political campaigns.
These are among the questions which we will be considering with the
confirmation proceeding on Solicitor General Kagan. I cited at some
length her law review article where she is inviting us to do so,
committing at least in her law review article in 1995 to provide
substantive answers and acknowledging that someone with a thin paper
trail, as she has, is under more of an obligation to respond.
I note the time has expired.
Exhibit 1
C-SPAN Timeline: Cameras in the Court
C-SPAN has sought to provide its audience with coverage of
the Judiciary, just as it has covered the Legislative and
Executive branches of government. The prohibition of
televised coverage of the Supreme Court's oral arguments has
been an obstacle to fulfilling that goal. Below is a record
of C-SPAN's efforts to make the Court more accessible to the
public.
1981--C-SPAN televises its first Supreme Court Senate
confirmation hearing with gavel-to-gavel coverage, with the
nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor.
1985--C-SPAN launches ``America & the Courts,'' a weekly
program focusing on the Judiciary with an emphasis on the
Supreme Court.
1987--Court permits C-SPAN to originate live Interview and
call-in programs from its Press Room.
2/1988--First letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist requesting
camera coverage of Supreme Court.
11/1988--Participated in demonstration of potential camera
coverage in Supreme Court.
9/1990--C-SPAN airs first live telecast of a federal court
proceeding from a military appeals court.
1991--C-SPAN is instrumental in advocating and implementing
a 4-year experiment with the Judicial Conference to test
television coverage of civil cases before two federal Courts
of Appeals and six District Courts.
11/2000--Letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist requesting
camera coverage of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing
Board. Court agreed to release audio only.
12/2000--Letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist requesting live
audio release of Bush v. Gore. Received early audio release,
not live.
2003--Sent letter requesting early audio release of Grutter
v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. (Affirmative action
cases) Court agreed.
2003--Requested early audio release of McConnell v. FEC.
(Campaign finance rules) Court agreed.
5/2003--Justice O'Connor participates in C-SPAN's ``Student
and Leaders'' with students at Gonzaga College High School in
Washington, DC.
5/2003--Justice Thomas participates in C-SPAN's ``Student
and Leaders'' with students at Banneker High School.
2004--Requested early audio release in the following cases.
Rasul v. Bush and Al Oday v. United States; Cheney v. U.S.
District Court; Hamdi v. Rumsfeld; Rumsfeld v. Padilla. Court
agreed.
2004--Requested early audio release of Roper v. Simmons.
(Execution of juveniles) Denied.
2005--Requested early audio release of Van Orden v. Perry
and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. (Separation of
church and state) Denied.
1/2005--Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduces legislation
to televise the Supreme Court Statement. Read
4/2005--C-SPAN airs live a ``Constitutional Conversation''
moderated by Tim Russert with Justices Breyer, O'Connor and
Scalia. They discuss the role and operation of the Court,
among other subjects. Watch
10/2005--First letter to Chief Justice Roberts offering C-
SPAN capabilities to provide gavel-to-gavel camera coverage
of Supreme Court.
11/2005--Requested early audio release of: Ayotte v.
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (abortion) and
Rumsfeid v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
(``don't ask, don't tell'' policy). Agreed.
11/2005--C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb testifies before the Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing on the issue of cameras in the
Supreme Court. Watch/Read
11/2005--U.S. House passes provisions of Sunshine in the
Courtroom Act Statement. Read
2006--Requested audio release of tape of the investiture of
Justice Alito. Denied.
2006--Requested early audio release of voting rights act
cases. League of United Latin v. Perry; Travis County, Texas
v. Perry; Jackson v. Perry; GI Forum v. Perry. Denied.
3/2006--Requested early audio release of Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld. (Military Tribunals) Court agreed. Press Release
3/2006--Sens. Grassley (R-IA) and Schumer (D-NY) introduced
Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. Press Release
6/2006--Letter to Chief Justice Roberts requesting
simultaneous release of all oral arguments beginning with
2006 term. Denied.
8/2006--C-SPAN's Brian Lamb interviews Chief Justice John
Roberts in one of his first television interviews since
joining the court. Transcript/Watch
10/2006--Requested early audio release of Gonzalez v.
Planned Parenthood and Gonzalez v. Carhart (abortion). Court
agreed. Press Release
10/2006--C-SPAN airs live a discussion between Justice
Scalia and Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, called ``
The State of Civil Liberties.'' Watch
[[Page S5299]]
11/2006--Sent letter requesting early audio release of
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1 and
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (affirmative
action). Court agreed.
11/2006--Requested early audio release of oral arguments in
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1 and
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (Affirmative
action) Court agreed. Press Release
1/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of
Davenport v. Washington Education Association and Washington
v. Washington Education Association (Union dues). Denied.
1/2007--Introduction of the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act
of 2007 in the 110th Congress, co-sponsored by Sens. Grassley
(R-IA), Leahy (D-VT) and Schumer (D-NY).
1/2007--Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduces cameras in the
Supreme Court legislation. Watch
2/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of Rita
v. United States and Claiborne v. United States (Federal
sentencing guidelines). Denied
2/2007--Rep. Ted Poe (D-TX/2nd), a former judge, delivers a
floor speech about opening the court to cameras. Watch
2/2007--Sens. Specter and Cornyn discuss cameras in the
courts with Justice Anthony Kennedy during Judiciary
Committee hearing. Sen. Specter questions Justice Kennedy
directly. Watch/Sen. Cornyn remarks on his experience with
cameras. Watch/Watch Hearing
3/2007--Justices Kennedy and Thomas comment on cameras in
the court before a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing
on the FY08 Supreme Court budget. Watch Justice Kennedy/Watch
Justice Thomas
3/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of FEC
v. Wisconsin Right to Life and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to
Life (Campaign Finance). Denied.
3/7/2007--Sent letter requesting camera coverage of 3rd
circuit CBS vs. FCC hearing on Television Indecency
Standards. Received permission for audio only.
8/16/2007--Aired camera footage of Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals 8/15/07 oral argument in two cases on the
government's warrantless wiretapping program. Al-Haramain
Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. Bush Hepting v. AT&T
9/11/2007--Aired same-day audio of CBS vs. FCC hearing on
Television Indecency Standards.
9/27/2007--C-SPAN President Susan Swain testifies before
House Judiciary Committee on H.R. 2128, Sunshine in the
Courtroom Act of 2007. Watch/Read Testimony
9/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of
Medellin v. Texas (Presidential Powers) and Stoneridge
Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta (Securities Fraud). Denied.
10/2007--Sent letter requesting early audio release of
Boumediene v. Bush & Al Odah v. U.S. (Guantanamo Detainees)
Court Agreed. Press Release
11/16/2007--9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Al-
Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush cites C-SPAN'S request to
record oral argument and date footage was televised. See
footnote 5, page 14969.
12/06/2007--Senate Judiciary Committee votes in favor of
sending S. 344 to the full Senate for a vote. The bill would
require television coverage of the Supreme Court's open
sessions unless a majority of justices vote to block cameras
for a particular case.
1/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral argument
in Baze v. Rees (Lethal Injection). Court agreed. Press
Release
1/02/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral
argument in Crawford v. Marion County (Voting Rights).
Denied.
1/16/2008--NY Times Editorial on Cameras in the Supreme
Court.
3/2008--Request denied for same-day audio release of oral
argument in United States v. Ressam (``Millenium Bomber''
case).
3/2008--Request granted for same-day audio release of oral
argument in District of Columbia v. Heller (DC Gun Law).
Press Release
3/6/2008--The Senate Judiciary Committee passes the
``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act'' which allows cameras in
federal court rooms with a vote of 10-8 with one member
abstaining. The bill is referred to the full senate for
consideration. Press Release
3/21/2008--Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Editorial on
allowing cameras in the Supreme Court.
4/14/08--Request for same-day audio release of oral
argument in Kennedy V. Louisiana (Death Penalty for Rape)
denied.
9/26/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral
argument in Altria Group, Inc. v. Good (Marketing of
``Light'' Cigarettes) and Winter v. Natural Resources denied.
Request Letter
10/15/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral
argument in FCC v. Fox Television Stations (Television
Indecency Standards) denied. Request Letter Story
11/12/2008--Request for audio release of oral argument in
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (Free Speech) denied.
12/3/2008--Request for audio release of oral argument in
Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams (Supreme Court-State
Court authority) denied.
12/10/2008--Request for same-day audio release of oral
argument in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Can President's Cabinet be
sued for constitutional violations by subordinates) denied.
3/3/2009--Request for audio release of oral argument in
Caperton v. A.T. Massey (Should elected state judges recuse
themselves) denied.
3/27/2009--Joint request for same-day audio release of oral
argument in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District
Number One v. Holder 4-291 granted. Request Letter Article
7/2009--Judge Sotomayor questioned about cameras in the
court during her confirmation hearings. Sen. Specter on
Opinion Poll Sen. Specter on Cameras in the Court Sen. Kohl
on Cameras in the Court
7/2009--British Supreme Court decides to televise events
from inside the court's three chambers. Article
8/7/2009--Boston Herald op-ed by Wayne Woodlief:
``Televised justice would be for all.'' Article
9/9/2009--Request for Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission (Campaign Finance). Agreed.
11/2009--Requests for audio releases of oral arguments in
Jones v. Harris Associates (Investment fund fees), Graham v.
Florida (life sentence for minor), and Sullivan v. Florida
(life sentence for minor). Denied.
2/16/10--Request for request for same-day audio release of
oral argument in Holder v Humanitarian Law Project. Denied.
2/26/10--C-SPAN requests for same-day audio release of oral
arguments in Skilling v. United States and McDonald v. City
of Chicago on Tuesday, March 2nd--denied.
4/7/10--C-SPAN requests same-day audio release of oral
argument in Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez on
April 19. Denied.
4/15/10--During hearing of House Appropriations-
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Services,
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer comments on cameras in
the court. Click here to watch
4/29/10--C-SPAN statement on today's Senate Judiciary
Committee passage of two bills concerning TV cameras in the
Supreme Court. Press Release
5/10/10--Pres. Obama nominates U.S. Solicitor General Elena
Kagan. She gave remarks on cameras in the court during a
Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference from July, 23, 2009. Click
here to watch
____________________