once again I seek recognition to introduce legislation that will give the public greater access to our Supreme Court. This bill requires the high Court to permit television coverage of its open sessions unless it decides by a majority vote of the Justices that allowing such coverage in a particular case would violate the due process rights of one or more of the parties involved in the matter. The purpose of this 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. The Supreme Court makes pronouncements on Constitutional and Federal law that have a direct impact on the rights of Americans. Those rights 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 and reasons for the Court's decisions. In a very fundamental sense, televising the Supreme Court has been implicitly recognized--perhaps even sanctioned--in a 1980 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States entitled Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia.
Arlen Specter: “once again I seek recognition to introduce legislation that will give the public greater access to our Supreme Court.…”
Editor's note · Context
Introducing legislation for televised coverage of Supreme Court sessions.
Share
More from Arlen Specter
I wish to recognize MAJ Lance Burnett's service to his country and as an Air Force fellow on my staff. Major Burnett joined my office through the Congressional Fellows Program. Over the past year, he has been an invaluable addition to my…
I have sought recognition to urge my colleagues to support and take up next Congress the bill I just introduced, the Restoration of Legal Rights for Claimants Under Holocaust-Era Insurance Policies. The bill would restore the right of…
Because it is so important for the public to know how its Government functions, and because the Supreme Court affects the lives of Americans in such great detail.
The Polman article recites a number of Senators who voted no against proceeding with the DISCLOSE Act, having made in the past very forceful affirmative statements in favor of disclosure. It may be that by reminding those 4 Senators…





