SCOTUS Postpones Arguments, Ignores Technological Solutions
March 17, 2020
HOW'S THIS GONNA GO
|Adam Liptak with The New York Times reports on the Supreme Court’s decision to postpone its oral arguments scheduled for later this month. He notes that there are still some serious unknowns about the rest of the high court’s business for the term. Liptak: “By longstanding practice, the court generally decides all pending cases before the justices leave for their summer break in late June or early July. There was no indication on Monday that the court was prepared to alter that practice. Nor did the court indicate that it was exploring technological solutions. The court has never allowed camera or live audio coverage of its arguments. It has on rare occasions released same-day audio, though it usually waits until the end of the week to do so. The court’s next scheduled argument session, the last of the current term, is scheduled to begin on April 20 and end on April 29. It would be theoretically possible for the court to hear the postponed arguments then, though it would require many of them to be heard in the afternoon.”
JOINING CONFERENCE NOW
|NPR’s Nina Totenberg also reports on the Supreme Court delaying its oral arguments due to the coronavirus pandemic. GABE ROTH, Executive Director with Fix the Court, noted that many federal appeals courts will routinely hear arguments via phone or video conferencing. Of course, there are bound to be stumbles and moments of interruptions when attorneys and judges can’t see each other or be in the same room. But aren’t there interruptions when they’re in the same room too?
TOP-ED
|“The time has now come for courts across the nation to demonstrate flexibility, to modernize and to put aside stuffy, outdated notions of judicial pomp and circumstance. Most court proceedings — and all Supreme Court proceedings — can be held by video conference, without legal impediment or practical downside. Attorneys can make legal arguments to judges, and parties and the public can observe and participate as needed, through video linkage.” Elie Honig opines in CNN that SCOTUS didn’t have to postpone its oral arguments when it could have just joined the modern world and conducted its arguments through video conference. Honig urges, “Crisis has a way of forcing innovation, and crisis is here.”
HAVOC ON OUR COURTS
|Melissa Chan with TIME reports on how the coronavirus is “wreaking havoc” on federal and state courts throughout the country that have had to implement new measures, including suspending jury trials and postponing certain kinds of cases. “And while closing courtrooms and halting jury duty makes sense for public health reasons, some legal experts warn the delays could create an overwhelming backlog of cases and have legal ramifications, since defendants are guaranteed a speedy and fair trial under the Constitution.”
IT'S ALL COMING BACK TO ME NOW
|In The Hill, Jonathan Turley reacts to JOE BIDEN’S pledge to put a black woman on the Supreme Court if he’s elected president. Turley argues, “Imposing an absolute requirement that a nominee be a particular gender and race is effectively an affirmative action pledge. It is precisely what the Supreme Court already declared to be unconstitutional discrimination.” Turley references the expectation of former JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, who voted in favor of an admissions policy that allowed race to be a criteria but had said at the time, “25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Turley suggests, “The policy that Biden has taken goes far beyond that case and, if he used it, would come around the time when O’Connor foresaw the end of racial preferences in admissions. It would turn out that, roughly 25 years later, the Supreme Court would actually witness, not an end to race or gender preferences in admissions, but the application of such criteria for itself.”