I’ve been looking at the data with an eye towards gleaning a patter from the Court’s decisions. I’m not sure how the decision-making process works, but I’m certain that this is a decision made by the Chief Justice or the entire court- this is not a decision that could be made by the court’s staff.

Assuming that one or more members of the court actively vote on whether or not to grant C-SPAN’s infrequent requests, there are a few theories that could explain how the court decides when to release oral argument recordings on an expedited schedule:

1) A few of the justices wants to emphasize the seriousness of the case to one of their colleagues and therefore allows C-SPAN to air audio coverage of the case. Allowing audio to be released could play a role in amplifying the media coverage of a case and the Justices would certainly notice if their voices were being broadcast on the nightly news. In a case like Heller, the conservative justices might want to make it clear to Justice Kennedy that public opinion belong to their side.

2) The flip side of (1). Justices are trying to underscore the importance of a ruling for one of their fellow justices in an effort to make an uncomfortably broad ruling seem more palatable. For example: In a case like Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the conservative justices might like to see media coverage minimized so Justice Kennedy wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable ruling in their direction.

3) Another strategic move I haven’t discovered (TITCR)

4) Caprice.

You can see the C-SPAN list below the fold.

2000-2001 Term
1-Dec Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Board – Agreed
11-Dec Bush v Gore – Agreed

2002-2003 Term
1-Apr Grutter v Bollinger – Agreed
1-Apr Gratz v Bollinger – Agreed

2003-2004 Term
8-Sep McConnell v FEC – Agreed
20-Apr Rasul v Bush and Al Oday v US – Agreed
27-Apr Cheney v US District Court – Agreed
28-Apr Hamdi v Rumsfeld – Agreed
28-Apr Rumsfeld v Padill – Agreed

2004-2005 Term
13-Oct Roper v Simmons – Denied
2-Feb McCreary County v ACLU – Denied

2005-2006 Term
30-Nov Ayotte v Planned Parenthood of Northern New England – Agreed
6-Dec Rumsfeld v Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights – Agreed
16-Feb Request to tape the investiture of Alito at the Court – Denied

1-Mar League of United Latin v Perry – Denied
28-Mar Hamdan v Rumsfeld – Agreed

2006-2007 Term
8-Nov Gonzalez v Planned Parenthood – Agreed
8-Nov Gonzalez v Carhart – Agreed
4-Dec Parents Involved v Seattle School District No. 1 – Agreed
4-Dec Meredith v Jefferson County Board of Education – Agreed
10-Jan Davenport v Washington Education Association – Denied
20-Feb Rita v United States – Denied
25-Apr FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life – Denied

2007-2008 Term
9-Oct Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta – Denied
10-Oct Medellin v. Texas – Denied
5-Dec Boumediene v. Bush & Al Odah v. U.S. – Agreed
7-Jan Baze v. Reesv – Agreed
9-Jan Crawford v. Marion County – Denied
18-Mar District of Columbia v. Heller – Agreed
25-Mar United States v. Ressam – Denied
16-Apr Kennedy v. Louisiana – Denied

2008-2009 Term
8-Oct Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counc – Denied
6-Oct Altria Group, Inc. v. Good – Denied
4-Nov FCC v Fox Television – Denied
12-Nov Pleasant Grove City v. Summum – Denied
3-Dec Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams – Denied
10-Dec Ashcroft v. Iqbal – Denied
3-Mar Caperton v. A.T. Massey – Denied
29-Apr Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder – Agreed
9-Sep Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Agreed

2009-2010 Term
2-Nov Jones v. Harris Associates – Denied
9-Nov Graham v. Florida – Denied
9-Nov Sullivan v. Florida – Denied
23-Feb Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project – Denied
1-Mar Skilling v. U.S. Enron – Denied
2-Mar McDonald v. Chicago – Denied
19-Apr Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez – Denied

Total Cases – 46 (not counting request for Alito investiture)
Agreed – 21
Denied – 25

Related posts

• Oral Argument audio recording released in Northwest Austin (April 29, 2009)
• Time to Update the Resume (April 29, 2009)
• The Weeks Ahead (April 12, 2009)

The new site definitely has an visual appeal that was lacking with the old site but it doesn’t give us any new information. In a press release, the Court mentions that further changes are forthcoming. In the last few years the Court has taken huge steps forward in releasing more informative transcripts and enhancing the information that makes its way to the website. With that in mind though, the Court has always moved at a sluggish pace in getting updates to its website. Bringing the site in-house should help speed up the process of adding more information.

Related posts

• SCOTUSTV (May 27, 2007)
• SCOTUS on YouTube?! ZOMG!!!!!!1 (April 30, 2007)
• Oral Argument audio recording released in Northwest Austin (April 29, 2009)

The highlight for myself and many other Court-watchers was the requested $800,000 for updates to the Supreme Court website. The Court’s website hasn’t changed substantially since it went online on April 17, 2000. In the years since then, the Court has made small steps towards posting transcripts and recordings online faster and faster.

In 2004, the Court started publishing questions presented for every case andrecording the identity of questioners during oral arguments. In 2007, the Court began requiring an electronic copy of all filings.

At the beginning of his second full term in office, Chief Justice Roberts announced that the Court would release oral argument transcripts on the same day they are heard. Since then, the Court has been increasingly willing to release oral argument recordings in major cases on the same day they are heard. His move towards producing quick information has been generally well-received and I’m sure the Justices appreciate feeding the public more and more in order to quell calls for televised oral arguments. I, for one, am hoping that the new website will feature cert-stage briefs in a more easily accessible manner because even though briefs are public domain, it is difficult to get access to cert. petitions when they are filed.

Related posts

• Which Justices Write The Most 9-0 Opinions? 5-4 Opinions? (February 27, 2009)
• Welcome Back, Old Friend (October 4, 2008)
• Walter Dellinger Discusses the End of the Term (June 22, 2009)

That’s why, O’Connor said, she wanted to work alongside University of Wisconsin-Madison professor James Paul Gee to create Our Courts, which will begin rolling out in September 2009.

The game “lets students engage in real issues and real problems,” O’Connor said. It will allow them to “step into the shoes of a judge, a legislator, an executive — teach them how to think through and analyze problems, take action and voice opinions to their elected representatives.”

An early exercise in the game will likely deal with educating students about their First Amendment rights, using examples like Tinker v. Des Moines and the “Bong Hits For Jesus” case.

Related posts

• The End Of The World OR John Roberts Is The Silent Type (July 1, 2007)
• OT2007 Watch- #7 Up Close And Personal (September 24, 2007)
• Nine Swinging Justices (April 16, 2007)

One sign that talking and texting may be the new smoking: signs asking folks to turn off their cell phones before entering places like doctor’s offices.

Its true. At one store just down the street from me, a sign ask patrons to get off the phone when at the cash register in order ‘let [them] serve [us] in the best and most efficient manner.’ I’ve broken the ‘law’ dozens of times, but still, I get an uncomfortable look from the man at the register every time. Along with than small establishments, local and national governments have taken up the issue. A number of states including New York, New Jersey, and California have enacted laws banning cell phone usage in cars to some degree.

I haven’t gotten into the texting craze, but I am guilty of calling people whenever I get bored and happen to be away from my computer. I’m not proud, but my rabbid cell phone use does explain a lot of things….

Related posts

• No related posts detected.