Why Live Audio Of SCOTUS Arguments Should Be The New Normal
May 29, 2020
IF NOT NOW THEN WHEN
|Melissa Quinn with CBS News reports SCOTUS is under pressure to make live audio of its oral arguments a permanent practice going forward. Quinn notes, “The foray into telephonic arguments with live audio went off with relatively few glitches, save for issues with the mute button and what sounded distinctly like a toilet flush. While there were some complaints about the format…the real time audio received high marks across the board.” Executive Director of Fix the Court, GABE ROTH, told Quinn: “If you want to not only understand what’s going on at the court, but also see and hear an institution that by and large works, that is trying the best it can to get to find the solution that will get a majority of justices to stand behind, that’s something that is often lost on folks if we don’t have that visual or audio media coming out in real time. You’re not going to have citizens pay attention to something that they can only see or hear several days later.”
PRAY IT DON'T SPRAY IT
|David Savage with the Los Angeles Times reports on the religious freedom claim out of California in which a church has asked for an exemption from the state’s COVID-19 rules. The church filed an emergency appeal last weekend asking the justices to take swift action to open in-person church services for this Sunday, May 31. Savage explains, “Before the justices could look at the appeal, however, GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM issued new guidelines on Monday that will allow houses of worship to reopen, but with limits. The new rules say ‘places of worship must limit attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower.’ The church filed a revised appeal on Tuesday and said the high court should free it from those restrictions. Their ‘sanctuary seats 600 persons, and each service normally brings in between 200 and 300 congregants,’ the church said.”
BLANKET IMMUNITY
|“The brutal death of GEORGE FLOYD at the hands of Minneapolis police has re-energized a national debate over misconduct by law enforcement officials that the Supreme Court may be poised to enter. The justices could announce as early as Monday that they will consider if law enforcement and other officials continue to deserve ‘qualified immunity’ that protects them from being sued for official actions.” Richard Wolf with USA Today notes that SCOTUS previously established that protection for police, letting them off the hook for bad behavior unless it violated “clearly established” laws or constitutional rights. Wolf points out, “But in recent years, justices, lower court judges and scholars on both the left and right have questioned that legal doctrine for creating a nearly impossible standard for victims to meet and a nearly blanket immunity for those accused of misconduct.”
BLOCK THE VOTE, DON'T BLOCK THE VOTE BABY
|Ian Millhiser with Vox reviews a decision from the Texas Supreme Court this week which he says could disenfranchise millions of Texans if the coronavirus keeps voters at home on Election Day. At issue is whether Texas will allow younger voters, under the age of 65, the ability to receive an absentee ballot merely by requesting one. The state supreme court decision would not allow “younger” voters to request an absentee ballot, but Millhiser explains that will not be the final word on the matter.