Comments on: Oral Fixation at the Supreme Court

By: “Reverse Circuit-Riding” and Justices By Designation: A New Approach to the Supreme Court « The View From LL2

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:31:51 +0000

[...] and Justices By Designation: A New Approach to the Supreme Court February 1, 2010 A while back, I noted a recent series on the Volokh Conspiracy that proposed some radical reforms to the Supreme [...]

By: Susan Simpson

Susan Simpson — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:42:41 +0000

And, as pointed out last night at our bimonthly Shuffleboard and Jurisprudence meeting, if the court really gave a frack about the democratic element, they would not have such an intense phobia about allowing their proceedings to be filmed.

I never got why justices were so camera-shy. Maybe they’re worried they will look bad, or that the camera will add ten pounds on them? I mean, sure, it’s not as if robes are particularly flattering, but as clothing goes, they’re pretty much the most forgiving outfit you could think up.

By: Joe T.

Joe T. — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:05:04 +0000

Might we posit that the “wasted time” in oral arguments acts as a useful brake on the system? Is it more useful for the Supreme Court to suddenly be able to take lots more cases, or to be motivated to pick a single definitive case and carefully and comprehensively rule on it? If the objective is to reduce the proportion of cases that are later overruled as bad law or found to require supplememtal rulings, which path better serves that end?

In simple terms, if we abolished oral argument, would Plessy v. Ferguson have been quickly overruled, or quickly given even more weight by a stream of similarly-decided cases?