A Camera in the U.S. Supreme Court? Absolutely!
Monica King
November 14, 2005
YES, I say to cameras in the courts -- all the courts.
There is a case in the U.S. Supreme Court line- up this year, which is crucial to weigh in on in order to form a more perfect Union & preserve & uplift the Constitutional protections our forefathers envisioned when setting up our new born democracy in America, now a little over 200 years old.
Yes, we may be elderly by Iraqi standards. So the international community ought to be seeking guidance from an elder statesperson, “America”, or collective Republic distinct from Rome in ancient days.
Amendment I is really all any person within the protection & embrace of U.S. citizenry ought to need to maintain assertively the answer.
Video cameras are simply an extension of media. When the Declaration of Independence was drafted, the media of the day were limited to pen & ink & the printing press, the offset presses which were laborious to set & get rolling to make multiple copies.
Our media explosion in the past twenty years however has afforded ample research to demonstrate that when it comes to learning & comprehension of any material, a learner is enhanced by adding dimension to that learning. These pearls of wisdom come from educators studying the effectiveness of various modes of learning.
As a Red Cross instructor, I am most interested in life long learning strategies & how to reach adults with core curriculums in Red Cross Life Saving skills.
Traditionally, Red Cross & First Responder skills are taught in a combination of didactic modes with hands on apprenticeships & monitoring, signing off on & coaching skills by seasoned mentors who have been riding the paramedic runs for years within their own communities.
We now use video tapes, or combinations of audio/visual moving pictures & sounds to reinforce what is being taught on the ground with “resusciannies” our plastic stand-ins for humans we practice on.
If our entire system of democracy; our republic hinges upon the PROTECTION OF LIBERTIES, there is no protection like multidimensional media to show ANY eyes the nuances of body language & gestures, grimaces & the like that can not be captured in the printed word alone. We can SEE truth beyond words as well as FEEL & HEAR truth beyond words. This televised media is publishable instantly & world wide.
Since we are wealthy enough to provide this media access for ALL within the chambers of ANY Court room, including the U.S. Supreme Court, this only EXPANDS the rights & privileges for the masses in ACCESS which again has been reemphasized in the more lately worded Americans with Disabilities Act drafted & PASSED IN THE 1990S.
THE CONCERN OF the justices about being seen instantly world wide while deliberating is frankly in my opinion one of sheer vanity. It fully exposes them all to the same type of public scrutiny given our legislators on C Span. If it is good for the House & Senate, why not the Highest Court in the land?
How could any High court justice argue in good Constitutional faith, that their objection is actually based upon common law & sense in this country rather than blatant self- interest?
Answer me that one Justice Souter.
Amendment I
Freedom of religion, speech, of the press, and right of petition.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is a case in the U.S. Supreme Court line- up this year, which is crucial to weigh in on in order to form a more perfect Union & preserve & uplift the Constitutional protections our forefathers envisioned when setting up our new born democracy in America, now a little over 200 years old.
Yes, we may be elderly by Iraqi standards. So the international community ought to be seeking guidance from an elder statesperson, “America”, or collective Republic distinct from Rome in ancient days.
Amendment I is really all any person within the protection & embrace of U.S. citizenry ought to need to maintain assertively the answer.
Video cameras are simply an extension of media. When the Declaration of Independence was drafted, the media of the day were limited to pen & ink & the printing press, the offset presses which were laborious to set & get rolling to make multiple copies.
Our media explosion in the past twenty years however has afforded ample research to demonstrate that when it comes to learning & comprehension of any material, a learner is enhanced by adding dimension to that learning. These pearls of wisdom come from educators studying the effectiveness of various modes of learning.
As a Red Cross instructor, I am most interested in life long learning strategies & how to reach adults with core curriculums in Red Cross Life Saving skills.
Traditionally, Red Cross & First Responder skills are taught in a combination of didactic modes with hands on apprenticeships & monitoring, signing off on & coaching skills by seasoned mentors who have been riding the paramedic runs for years within their own communities.
We now use video tapes, or combinations of audio/visual moving pictures & sounds to reinforce what is being taught on the ground with “resusciannies” our plastic stand-ins for humans we practice on.
If our entire system of democracy; our republic hinges upon the PROTECTION OF LIBERTIES, there is no protection like multidimensional media to show ANY eyes the nuances of body language & gestures, grimaces & the like that can not be captured in the printed word alone. We can SEE truth beyond words as well as FEEL & HEAR truth beyond words. This televised media is publishable instantly & world wide.
Since we are wealthy enough to provide this media access for ALL within the chambers of ANY Court room, including the U.S. Supreme Court, this only EXPANDS the rights & privileges for the masses in ACCESS which again has been reemphasized in the more lately worded Americans with Disabilities Act drafted & PASSED IN THE 1990S.
THE CONCERN OF the justices about being seen instantly world wide while deliberating is frankly in my opinion one of sheer vanity. It fully exposes them all to the same type of public scrutiny given our legislators on C Span. If it is good for the House & Senate, why not the Highest Court in the land?
How could any High court justice argue in good Constitutional faith, that their objection is actually based upon common law & sense in this country rather than blatant self- interest?
Answer me that one Justice Souter.
Amendment I
Freedom of religion, speech, of the press, and right of petition.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Print
Email
