According to Taranto, on the article Disorder in the Court, he builds a profound interest in the U.S Supreme Court which has on no occasion had a keen interest on the opinion of the oft-debated question of whether the oral arguments should be televised or videotaped. A vague aversion to the idea could have been acknowledgeable except it could have been impossible to articulate a clear argument to support it. The case that was being handled at the time was a minor case which could not have made it to the news headlines. However, the event in which a U.S citizen stood up to protest on the court’s 2010 ruling in Citizen United in the middle of the oral argument which is one of the rare occurrences in history, crystallized the debate on the eligibility of videotaping of the Supreme Court proceedings.
But has we know, sneaking cameras past the daunting court security is something that has never in the past occurred hence the breach in the security could have made big news to the media. Wegman, on (Supreme) Court TV and the Magically Disappearing Protest describes the event in detail and the eventual arrest of the protester yet, the court pretended like nothing ever happened. This was realized when the routine posting of the official transcript of the court and audio recordings on its website every Fridays. The events in question were not encompassed in the court’s official transcript of the oral argument and also snipped off the audio recordings made by the court. There you have it, all was set to appear as normal as ever with silence and respect of the court being put back in the front like.
It is an imperative reminder that whatever that happens in the court room is the public’s business; everything in its totality. The odd and counterproductive manner in which the court handled the issue is something of interest. The justices on making their decision were well aware on the impulses they could evoke on the public protestors and even encourage hecklers in court not to mention those who would attempt death threats on them. Wegman, on (Supreme) Court TV and the Magically Disappearing Protest describes that the court record is only purported to serve the illusion that it (Supreme Court) is beyond any forces in government and the political arena which in truth is not true and we should not pretend about that.
The major concern now arises on the acknowledgement of such harangue; whatever the redaction of the event has accomplished is too little too much. This would goad other copycat disruptors who would take advantage of the same and act against the law. There would be a possible plea of not guilty with the notable evidence not recorded on the court’s official transcript. Not only to mention that, but the retardation also managed to create conflicting information between the audio and the written transcript. We cannot visualize on any strong argument that the transcript must only capture the official court proceeds for the justices too know that every...