« Is Papyrus in your future? | Main | More is worse for NCLB »
April 23, 2008
TMZ: the Supreme Court edition?In today’s op-ed in USA Today, Tony Mauro, decries the “cloak of secrecy” surrounding the Supreme Court. But, Mauro’s issues with the court stem not from the Court’s jurisprudence, its processes, or its fairness---all substantive issues of democratic concern, but more with the Court’s---or, rather the individual justices’---public persona. Mauro, a seasoned Supreme Court reporter wants more than just the justices’ opinion on the law. He wants access. And, he all but begs for personal interaction when he complains that the Court’s press corps only, “see[s] a lot of the justices when they are nominated and again when they leave the court.”
Now, BoardBuzz is all about access. Certainly, BoardBuzz sees itself as an elegant, albeit slightly askew, vehicle for providing access to all kinds of good stuff to you loyal BoardBuzzers, but we are rather nonplussed by what at first glance seems a somewhat adolescent infatuation with the persons of the justices themselves. Justice Scalia, afterall, is no Lance Bass. Is, Mr. Mauro really suggesting he wants to know who the justices are dating, whether they hung out with Paris Hilton last night or whether they sent their clerks scurrying for pictures of His Holiness on his recent visit? Well, no, of course, not. But, it does beg the question: what exactly is it that Mr. Mauro would want from the justices personally to tell the public in this democracy dependent on gossi… er, information? But, we digress.
And, to be fair, Mauro's article does have some good suggestions for educating the American people about the court: a video clip of Chief Justice Roberts discussing the court or giving a tour of its magnificent building; posting audio of all arguments, perhaps even video clips of the arguments. And, offering the Chief Justice’s annual report on the state of the judiciary at the American Bar Association sounds like a fine idea to us.
But, then all good things come to an end, don’t they. Before you go accusing us of being pessimistic, fatalistic and myopic, check out this: The op-ed says, "[The Court’s] members might be unelected, but the Supreme Court is the American people's highest court. It should not get to decide how invisible, how unaccountable, it will be." What!!!??? We were joshing around with the whole paparazzi bit, but this is beyond the pale. First, to equate the lack of personal access (as we expect from our elected representative) with unaccountability is laughable.
Judges are NOT politicians. And, they should not be subject to the kinds of access from special interests and even constituents that plow the halls of Congress. It can't be that the fact that the justices are appointed makes them unaccountable? Perhaps what was meant was "independence." As in, the framers of the Constitution intended the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary to have a clear independence from the other branches of government so that their rulings would be fair, equitable and impartial under the law and not subject to external pressures of the day. But, don’t listen to us, take a gander at what Justice O’Connor says on the importance of the independence of the judiciary.
Oh, wait, but you do know, Mr. Mauro, all about the independence of the judiciary. You once wrote Justice O’Connor herself issued a “rip-snorting defense of judicial independence” to the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers in Washington, D.C.
So, we’re left at somewhat of a loss. What’s Mauro's real beef with the High Court? Is it really concern for the public’s right to know the “disembodied oracles who decide life and death issues without ever making contact with the taxpayers who fund their salaries” as he so off-handedly states? Or, is this about the desire of the Fourth Estate to fill the ever insatiable appetite for information of any kind that seems to be prevalent these days?
We leave it to our able BoardBuzzers to cogitate (and comment, if you dare). But, we do close with this observation: Maybe the "one unelected branch of government[‘s] desire to thrive outside the limelight and above the fray" has more to do with making sure that people get fair treatment under the law than about fulfilling some puerile fantasy about denying the paparazzi. Period.
Posted April 23, 2008 12:24 PM | School Law
Trackback Pings
BoardBuzz Feed
