It seems as though the Supreme Court has posted a video on their website here. As I am writing this, the link is not working but I will keep you up to date as this progresses. I have busy these last few days with school/exams/etc. so the blog has been moving along pretty slowly but I will be sure to comment on the Court’s FIVE decisions today. I’m also doing a bit of research on the Court’s past decisions in regard to voting bloc’s and trends. This video update is really interesting. I have no idea what the video will be. Exciting!

The Court has long rejected the idea of having video cameras in the Court room, but as technology advances, it seems inevitable that cameras will enter one day. Is today the day?

scotuschase.pngUpdated: Well, the SCOTUS definitely needs to consider a shift over to some more reliable servers. The file is going online and offline constantly but I finally finished downloading it.

The video accompanies the ruling in Scott v. Harris in which a police officer injured a man during a high-speed pursuit. The Court normally accepts the plaintiffs version of events if there is a question of facts but in this case, there is a video! Here is what Justice Scalia writes in footnote 5 of the majority opinion:

JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that our reaction to the videotape is somehow idiosyncratic, and seems to believe we are misrepresenting its contents. See post, at 4 (dissenting opinion) (“In sum, the factual statements by the Court of Appeals quoted by the Court . . . were entirely accurate”). We are happy to allow the videotape to speak for itself. See Record 36, Exh. A, available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb and in Clerk of Court’s case file.

In the case, Harris argues that he wasn’t a serious threat to the well-being of public and the Court of Appeals subscribes to that view. The SCOTUS rejects that notion and totally pwns the lower courts:

That was the case here with regard to the factual issue whether respondent was driving in such fashion as to endanger human life. Respondent’s version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him. The Court of Appeals should not have relied on such visible fiction; it should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.

Chief Justice Rehnquist is SURELY rolling over in his grave right now. Sorry William, but the new Chief Justice is just a little more computer savvy….


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Supreme Court Releases Four Opinions; Ten Remain: The Supreme Court released four divided opinions today including a very interesting case rejecting an inmate's right to test the DNA used to...
  • Traitors to the Cause: 6-3 decisions are, statistically speaking, the least common vote split. Frequently, those cases split along the ideological lines that are s...
  • A Big Little Case: Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an interesting case about water law in Montana, PPL Montana v. Montana. The case wi...
  • New OT08 Term Stats : With 43 opinions released, the Court has now released just over half of the opinions it will release for the term. Lets take a look at some ...
  • Final Term Index: Here is the final Term Index for October Term 2009. OT09_term_index_final