CLERK WHO SAT THROUGH A YEAR OF ARGUMENTS AND LEARNED SO MUCH ABOUT THE SYSTEM IN THAT PROCESS, WHY NOT OPEN IT UP TO VIDEO RECORDINGS? WHY NOT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS GIVE THE PUBLIC THE BENEFIT OF SEEING IT FIRSTHAND IN YOUR COURT AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS AND SO APPRECIATE REALLY THE QUALITY AS WELL AS THE DIVERSITY AND THE EXTRAORDINARILY, OFTEN EXCRUCIATING DIFFICULTY OF WHAT YOU DO? I'LL START. SENATOR, WHEN I FIRST CAME ON THE COURT, I WAS IN FAVOR OF -- YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT TELEVISING THE ARGUMENTS, RIGHT? NOT THE CONFERENCE. THE BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT THEY TELEVISE THEIR CONFERENCE. I WOULD NEVER PRESUME OR
24
00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:48,999
CONFERENCE. THINK OF TELEVISING THE NOR WOULD I. I WAS INITIALLY IN FAVOR OF TELEVISING. THE LONGER I'VE BEEN THERE, THE LESS GOOD IDEA I THINK IT IS. THE JUSTIFICATION USUALLY PUT FORWARD IS WE WANT TO EDUCATE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT THE COURT IS AND WHAT NOT. NOW IF I REALLY THOUGHT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD GET EDUCATED, I'D BE ALL FOR IT. AND IF THEY SAT THROUGH A DAY'S OF OUR PROCEEDINGS GAVEL TO
40
00:01:19,000 --> 00:01:18,999
GAVEL, BOY WOULD IT TEACH THEM A LOT. THEY WOULD LEARN THAT WE'RE NOT MOST OF THE TIME LOOKING UP AT THE SKY AND SAYING SHOULD THERE BE A RIGHT TO THIS OR THAT? WE'RE DOING REAL LAW. THE BANKRUPTCY CODE, THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. PEOPLE WOULD NEVER AGAIN COME UP TO ME AND ASK, AS THEY SOMETIMES DO, JUSTICE SCALIA, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE A LAWYER TO BE ON THE SUPREME COURT? THE CONSTITUTIONAL DOESN'T SAY
55
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:40,999
NO, OF COURSE IT DOESN'T. SO. BUT 99% OF WHAT WE DO IS LAW. IT'S STUFF THAT ONLY LAWYERS CAN DO. AND IF THE PEOPLE WOULD LEARN THAT, IT WOULD BE A GREAT PIECE OF EDUCATION. BUT FOR EVERY TEN PEOPLE WHO SAT THROUGH OUR PROCEEDINGS GAVEL TO WOULD BE 10,000 WHO WOULD SEE NOTHING BUT A 30-SECOND TAKEOUT FROM ONE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH I GUARANTEE YOU WOULD NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT WE DO. SO THEY WOULD IN EFFECT BE GIVEN
72
00:02:15,000 --> 00:02:14,999
A MISIMPRESSION OF THE SUPREME COURT. I'M VERY SURE THAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCE, AND THEREFORE I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF TELEVISING IT. BUT IT WOULD FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OR EVEN MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS AND FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO WERE INTERESTED IN AN IMPORTANT AND PERTINENT CASE PROVIDE A MEANS FOR THEM TO SEE WHAT RIGHT NOW ONLY A VERY LIMITED AUDIENCE CAN VIEW BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE COURT. BUT FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN IT FOR THOSE INTELLECTUAL REASONS, SURELY THE TAPES ARE GOOD ENOUGH. WELL, THE TAPES, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONVEY IN THE SAME WAY WITH AS MUCH INTEREST THE KIND OF DEBATE, THE BACK AND
96
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:07,999
ACTION IN COURT. FORTH, THE VISUAL SENSE OF THE AND I KNOW AND YOU KNOW REALLY HOW DRAMATIC IT CAN BE. WE JUST SIT THERE LIKE NINE STICKS ON CHAIRS? THERE IS NOT A WHOLE LOT OF VISUAL MOTION. THERE REALLY ISN'T. IT'S MOSTLY INTELLECTUAL MOTION. I CAN TELL YOU CERTAINLY IS GRIPPING IF YOU'RE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. JUSTICE BREYER, DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW? NO. SORT OF, A LITTLE. BUT I THINK WE'RE CONSERVATIVE. AND YOU WOULD BE TOO IF YOU WERE THERE. THE COURT HAS LASTED THE COUNTRY WELL AND SERVED THE COUNTRY WELL OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. WE'RE THERE FOR A SHORT TIME. WE'RE TRUSTEES. AND WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION THAT WILL BE
123
00:03:56,000 --> 00:03:55,999
COURTS. NONREVERSIBLE AND HURT THE YOU START THERE. AND THEN SOMETIMES I THINK WHEN WE HAD THE TERM LIMITS CASE OUT OF ARKANSAS, I JUST WISH PEOPLE COULD HAVE SEEN THAT. IT WAS SUCH A GOOD CASE. I MEAN, YOU HAD JEFFERSON AND STORY ON ONE SIDE AND MADISON AND HAMILTON ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT WAS THE TERM LIMITS. IT WAS -- AND WHAT YOU SAW IS EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVENLY BALANCED WITH THE PRECEDENTS,
138
00:04:22,000 --> 00:04:21,999
ARE THE -- I WON'T GO INTO THE CASE. BUT IF THEY COULD HAVE SEEN THAT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE IN THAT ORAL ARGUMENT NINE INDIVIDUALS STRUGGLING WITH A REALLY DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THAT
147
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:33,999
COURT AND EVERYBODY. WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD FOR THE ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? WELL, ONE PROBLEM IS THAT WE'RE ASSEMBLE, AND IF IT WERE US IN OUR COURT, IT COULD PROBABLY BE IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE IN THE COUNTRY, AND YOU WOULD GET RID OF WHAT? WHY DON'T WE DO IT WITH JURORS. WHAT ABOUT THE CRIMINAL WITNESSES?
160
00:04:58,000 --> 00:04:57,999
SYMBOLS. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WITH OR WOULD PEOPLE COME UP WITH A MISIMPRESSION, MAINLY THE ORAL ARGUMENTS 5% OF THE CASE. 3% OF THE CASE. IT'S REALLY DONE IN WRITING. AND THEY DON'T SEE THAT. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, PEOPLE RELATE TO PEOPLE. YOU RELATE TO PEOPLE. I DO. WHEN YOU SEEM THEM, THEY'RE YOUR FRIENDS OR NOT YOUR FRIENDS OR WHATEVER. BUT WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE THERE TO AFFECT 309 MILLION PEOPLE WHO AREN'T THERE. AND IN OUR MINDS, WE HAVE TO TAKE THOSE 309 MILLION INTO ACCOUNT. AND WILL THAT COME ACROSS? AND THEN THERE IS THE PROBLEM THAT JUSTICE SCALIA MENTIONED WHICH IS QUITE RIGHT. YOU CAN MAKE PEOPLE LOOK GOOD OR YOU CAN MAKE THEM LOOK BAD, DEPENDING ON WHICH 30 SECONDS YOU TAKE. AND IT'S ALREADY CULT OF PERSONALITY, AND LET'S NOT MAKE IT WORSE. WE WEAR BLACK ROBES BECAUSE WE ARE SPEAKING FOR LAW, NOT FOR OURSELVES AS INDIVIDUALS. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. SO ADD THOSE UP AND I SAY I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE. I REALLY WOULD. THERE ARE PLACES THAT DON'T HAVE IT AND HAVE IT THERE IS CANADA THAT HAS IT THERE IS CALIFORNIA IN SOME SITUATIONS. YOU HAVE 100 DIFFERENT SITUATIONS IN RESPECT TO THAT. WHY CAN'T WE GET SOME REAL INFORMATION, NOT PAID FOR BY ANYBODY THAT HAS AN INTEREST IN THIS. BUT PEW OR SOME OF THE FOUNDATIONS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO ATTITUDES, TO JUDICIAL ATTITUDES TO OTHERS. SO WHAT YOU'RE GETTING I THINK, AND MAYBE EVENTUALLY IT'S GOING TO BE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SEE THINGS BUT VISUALLY, AND EVERYBODY IS DOING THAT, AND IT WILL JUST SEEM WEIRD WHAT WE DO NOW. AND THEN IT WILL ALL CHANGE. BUT BEFORE THAT TIME, I THINK A LITTLE BORING, BUT I THINK INFORMATION IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE ME EASIER. AND UNTIL I BECOME EASY ABOUT IT, UNTIL WE BECOME REASONABLY CONVINCED THAT WON'T HURT THE INSTITUTION, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A CONSERVATIVE REACTION. THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS THE TRUTH OF IT. SENATOR, IT'S MAYBE UNFAIR TO PUT THIS QUESTION TO YOU SINCE YOU'RE SUCH A YOUNGSTER HERE. THAT'S THE BEST THING THAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT ME EIN A LONG TIME. DO YOU REALLY THINK THE PROCESS IN THE SENATE HAS BEEN IMPROVED SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN TELEVISED? WELL, JUST AS YOU TOOK A PASS EARLIER, I THINK THAT THERE ARE MIXED VIEWS, BUT IN GENERAL, I THINK THAT OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY IMPROVES INSTITUTIONS. AND FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT YOU HAVE SO ELOQUENTLY TALKED ABOUT YOUR ROLE IN EDUCATING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, I THINK THAT AN AUDIO AND VISUAL RECORDING OF SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS WOULD POTENTIALLY DO THE SAME. AND I THINK THAT WHATEVER THE RESULTS OF TELEVISING SENATE PROCEEDINGS, AND I WAS ONLY FACETIOUS WHEN I SAID I WOULD TAKE A PASS. I DO THINK THAT IT HAS BEEN A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF PROVIDING MORE TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE AND UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC. NOW, I'LL LET YOU AND THE PUBLIC BE THE JUDGE OF HOW IT VIEWS US. BUT I THINK IN GENERAL, AMERICANS SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES AS WELL AS THE ROLE THAT THEIR INSTITUTIONS FACE. AND SINCE MY TIME HAS EXPIRED AND I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BEING HERE. AND I AM NOT AT ALL DISMISSIVE
