The Gravel For 4/2/14: Why Isn't The Supreme Court Televised
After today's latest monarchial, affluent, and elitist ruling by the John Roberts Corporate Court, allowing the Kochs and Adelsons of the world to spread their already toxic influence on American governing, it is once again salient to bring up this question I always ask:
Why isn't the Supreme Court televised?
I mean, seriously, this is something in 2014 that should long never be a question, but will continue to be for what I fear will be forever.
Television hasn't stopped nutty Republicans (with the help of sellout and willing Democrats capitulating pure democratic principles) from awful ideas and bills passed in Congress, and you can't see lawmakers every steps no matter how much transparency was thrown during the Obama first campaign.
But just imagine if there was no C-SPAN given to at least provide some visual evidence for how our public officials were either screwing us or actually fighting for our causes as general collective?
It's the 35th anniversary of that idea and networks, and despite all the horror shows of watching certain politicians act in camera and the mundanity that comes with watching how your government functions, we are all better off as a society to see how the public officials we pay and send to Congress act. No one of any rational, political substance would disagree.
Now of course it is different with Supreme Court judges. We don't elect John Roberts to be a corporate proud shill, or Tony Scalia to be both a corporate shill and just a lovely troll as well. But we still elect them who chose them, and the Senators who then confirm them. And of course, their vote and post-decision comments, like today, affect us dearly.
It always amazes me how the likes of Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias, O.J. Simpson, and yes, Justin Bieber, can get wonderful television time in court to see their stories in court, yet no Supreme Court television time for us all.
It further amazes me how court shows exploded after the success of the original version of "The People's Court" and "Judge Judy," only to not have any discussion of Supreme Court televised cases.
It annoyingly amazes me that after the creation of the now changed CourtTV (currently forever now TruTV), that there is still not a drive to put the nation's most important and biggest cases on television.
I'm not saying that a televised court would have stopped today's latest debacle from the corporate, centrist sham the court has become and maybe will forever be. And I'm not saying it will stop more awful rulings in the future.
But a television presence adds a major dimension that we don't have, where people can visually see in live time the key characteristics and behaviors of the most powerful judges on Earth. It can give the conservatives, centrist, and even liberals (Kagan and Sotomayor definitely is in the middle near Kennedy than with Ginsburg) on court a pause to whether their ruling in the future will come with the fact that the nation will see their decision making unlike before.
If a Judge Ito and a Judge Joe Brown can get time, then why can't the real judicial forces like Ginsburg and Anita Hill harasser Clarence Thomas as well?
Instead, the likes of Scalia and Roberts can gladly rule in secrecy and have little public scrutiny compared to their buddies John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. But their actions are more harmful to our democracy and our society.