Supreme Court on right track
$ wHOFRPH nHwV UHOHDVH IURP RuU VWDWH’V KLJK FRuUW reads:
“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ... announced that its entire Sept. 13 oral argument session, which LnFOudHV KHDULnJV Rn WKH VWDWH’V VHFRnd OHJLVODWLYH UHdistricting plan and the voter ID law, will be televised live on the Pennsylvania Cable Network (PCN). The KHDULnJV DUH EHLnJ KHOd Ln WKH FRuUW’V 3KLODdHOSKLD City Hall courtroom.
“Oral arguments will begin at 9:30 a.m. in the SuSUHPH CRuUW’V 3KLODdHOSKLD FRuUWURRP, URRP 456 RI City Hall. Strict decorum will be observed. Because RI OLPLWHd VHDWLnJ, REVHUYHUV wLOO EH DdPLWWHd Rn D fiUVW FRPH, fiUVW VHUYHd EDVLV. 2nFH WKH FRuUWURRP LV IuOO, those not admitted may wait in line to take a seat as those who were seated leave. The sessions held on the 11th and 12th will be taped for future airing by PCN.”
TKDW’V Dn HxFHOOHnW PRYH Rn WKH SDUW RI WKH 6uSUHPH Court.
Legislative redistricting and Voter ID are of intense interest to state citizens — at least to those politicially engaged.
3HRSOH wKR FDn’W SHUVRnDOOy DWWHnd WKH FRuUW SURceedings — most of us — should be able to tune in Dnd KHDU WKH DWWRUnHyV’ DUJuPHnWV Dnd WKH MuVWLFHV’ questions on matters that will fundamentally affect civic life in Pennsylvania.
The high court deserves credit for giving us that RSSRUWunLWy YLD 3C1 — 3HnnVyOYDnLD’V YHUVLRn RI C-Span. The public interest cable network does a professional, sober job of bringing such doings of government to political junkies statewide. It was a natural choice to televise the proceedings.
In fact, the high court deserves credit for its overall trend toward openness. After years of refusing to allow cameras in the court, it is slowly dismantling its wall of separation from the public. The court allowed a previous session on the redistricting plan to be televised, and it has allowed broadcasting of selected other sessions.
1Rw LW’V WLPH WR VSHHd uS WKH dLVPDnWOLnJ RI WKDW wall. In fact, remove it. Allow cameras in the courtroom for all high court proceedings — as well as proceedings in lower court (except, perhaps, in cases where there are good reasons not to allow cameras).
Likewise, the high court should allow journalists to report from the courtroom using social media such as Twitter.
A high court rules committee recently stated that such reporting is akin to broadcasting and thus not allowed in courtrooms. Nonetheless, some judges are allowing the practice. That includes vork County President Judge Stephen Linebaugh.
But other judges in other jurisdictions do not allow such instantaneous reporting. It was not allowed in the trial of former Democratic state Rep. Stephen Stetler for public corruption. It was not allowed in the Sandusky case — though the judge there clearly wanted to find a way to allow it and still abide by the KLJK FRuUW’V wLVKHV.
The point is, if our high court is going to allow camerDV Ln WKH FRuUWURRP, LW VKRuOdn’W SLFN Dnd FKRRVH wKLFK sessions to open. It should broadly allow the practice — with very limited exceptions. And it should open the courts to the new world of social media reporting.
The court is moving in the right direction with these 3C1 EURDdFDVWV, EuW LW’V PRYLnJ WRR VORwOy.
-Journal Register News Service