Unlike Other Nominees, Kavanaugh Hesitates About Cameras in Supreme Court
“I know nominees who've sat in this chair in the past have expressed the desire for cameras in the courtroom, only to get to the Supreme Court and really change their positions fairly rapidly,” Kavanaugh testified.
September 06, 2018 at 12:32 PM
4 minute read
For decades, U.S. Supreme Court nominees have been asked a perennial question: whether they think Supreme Court proceedings should be broadcast on television.
Almost all have said yes, but invariably they change their minds soon after they join the court, fearful of upsetting the court's traditions and dynamics.
Nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday sidestepped the question in part because of that switcheroo.
“I know nominees who've sat in this chair in the past have expressed the desire for cameras in the courtroom, only to get to the Supreme Court and really change their positions fairly rapidly,” Kavanaugh stated. “So that gives me some humility about making confident assertions about that, and of course, joining a team of nine means thinking about that … and hearing the perspectives of why did they change their position.”
Kavanaugh went on to tell U.S. Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, who asked the question Wednesday, that he had some concerns about televising oral arguments, even though his own court, the D.C. Circuit, has allowed “same-time” broadcast of the audio of its oral arguments. The court posts same-day audio, and allows livestreaming on request.
“Oral arguments are a time for the judges to ask testing questions of both sides, and there's a perception sometimes, and you see it in the media, that the judge is leaning this way at oral argument,” Kavanaugh said. “I really can't stand that kind of commentary about oral argument, because I, at least, have always approached oral argument as the time to ask tough questions of both sides. I do sometimes wonder whether people would get the wrong impression of oral argument.”
Kennedy pushed back at Kavanaugh's statement, telling him that “people aren't fools … You have to trust the people sometimes, judge.”
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a longtime advocate for cameras in the Supreme Court, asked Kavanaugh the camera question on Thursday. Kavanaugh pledged to have “an open mind” on the subject and again said he would listen to his colleagues' views on the subject.
In his testimony, Kavanaugh did allow that the broadcast of the opinion announcements made by justices as decisions are handed down might be more appropriate for broadcast than oral argument, though he was tentative on that point, too.
“Now, I've felt too, though, the announcement of the Supreme Court decisions when they issue the opinions, that's a different point in time” from oral argument, Kavanaugh said Wednesday. “That is the decision of the court.”
But the idea of broadcasting opinion announcements may be a tough sell for his likely future colleagues.
Oral argument audio is released by the court by the end of the week when the arguments occur, but opinion announcements are not made public until the next term begins.
The unstated reason for that delay is that justices don't want opinion announcements to stand as an official account of the decision for the public. When a justice announces the summary of his or her majority opinion, the other justices who join the majority have not signed off on the text. Some justices have complained that the announcements sometimes stray from the text of the decisions. The announcements are the closest thing to “spin” that Supreme Court justices do.
In his autobiography published in 1980, the late Justice William O. Douglas wrote about the vagaries of opinion announcements. “Once [Felix] Frankfurter, speaking for the court, ad-libbed at length, giving reasons for the opinion that had no resemblance to the opinion. As we walked out, [Harlan Fiske] Stone said, 'By God, Felix, if you had put all that stuff in the opinion, never in my life would I have agreed to it.'”
Read more:
Pressed on Kasowitz, Kavanaugh Denies 'Inappropriate' Contacts on Mueller Probe
Brett Kavanaugh Really Didn't Want to Talk About the Federalist Society
Kozinski Harassment Allegations Were 'Gut Punch,' Kavanaugh Tells Senate
Inside the Kavanaugh Hearing Room, Legal Luminaries and Protests Grab Attention
Spurning 'Angry Calls,' Blatt Raves About Kavanaugh, and Urges Confirmation
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
Supreme Court Considers Reviving Lawsuit Over Fatal Traffic Stop Shooting
US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
3 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Chief Judge Joins Panel Exploring Causes for Public's Eroding Faith in NY Legal System
- 2Pogo Stick Maker Wants Financing Company to Pay $20M After Bailing Out Client
- 3Goldman Sachs Secures Dismissal of Celebrity Manager's Lawsuit Over Failed Deal
- 4Trump Moves to Withdraw Applications to Halt Now-Completed Sentencing
- 5Trump's RTO Mandate May Have Some Gov't Lawyers Polishing Their Resumes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250