And not once have you made a legitimate argument about how it would decrease the court's effectiveness. Considering that it has been successfully implemented in many states, I don't know that you really can. You seem to have your mind made up. It's been real.
-
-
Perform a task then perform it being filmed for millions. If your performance never changes let me know.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bryce_carmony @danepps
It's already recorded in print and in audio. You have no legitimate case, or, at least, you've yet to make one. Respond to one of my several points with a legitimate counterpoint and I'll come back.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because all 9 justices are incredibly bright their words convey that. None of them are super models they sound better than they look and how they look doesn't matter.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Post your face on your avatar if video is meaningless
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bryce_carmony @danepps
I am a private individual who values his privacy. We are talking about public figures arguing before a public tribunal. Anyone can enter the gallery of the Court. Why not open it to those without the means to travel? The Court belongs to the people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because cameras would hinder effectiveness. 9 justices agree you're a Faceless troll on Twitter. Being filmed alters behavior. That's not an opinion that's a fact. You feel entitled to oogle them in your living room in your underwear but you're not.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bryce_carmony @danepps
Actually, one last thing. I feel no entitlement. I made an argument that cameras could be a useful educational tool, which you refused to respond to.
@Profepps can attest to my love for the Court and the Constitution. Enough to give four years of my life while working FT.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I would let this go. Being on Twitter puts a lot people in a mood to pick fights, with language like "you feel X"--I tend to mute such and go on my merry way.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thanks prof. I needed to hear that.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I do think @danepps is right--the Court must reach out to the public. Seeing oral argument might reassure a public that has been treated to a number of public tantrums ("Get over it!") by #Scalia, some unfortunate remarks by RBG, and the Kavanaugh hearings. It's so normal. /1
-
-
Agreed. From a PR perspective it would do a lot to dispel cries that the court is closed off to the people it serves, and would provide access to those that lack the means or proximity to physically travel to see proceedings.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Your professor blocked me. So much for being open and accessible.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.