The United States Supreme Court is guilty of a broad “failure to communicate” to the public it serves, constitutional scholar and law dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote recently. Dean Chemerinisky has been a regular and popular speaker at the American Judges Association annual conferences. He argues that the United States Supreme Court’s failure extends beyond the Court’s stubborn resistance to allowing camera coverage of its oral arguments. At almost every point of its decision-making process, according to Chemerinsky, the high court should be doing more to inform the public about what it does.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/01/supreme-court-fails-to-communicate-effectively-to-public-law-scholar-argues.html
More recently Judge Steve Leben & I coauthored a commentary about this United States Supreme Court oral argument.
Public attention will focus on the United States Supreme Court this week in a way that’s essentially unprecedented. Sure, there have been many important cases in the Court’s history, but few have had timing like this. It’s a presidential-election year. The health-care issues before the Court divide the country, even if the precise legal issues are not yet well understood by the public. And there are lots of pundits poised to comment, few of whom will actually be objective.
Judge Steve Leben
In this environment, the Court will hold three days of oral arguments, beginning today, on issues surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — the 2,400-page law called Obamacare by its detractors and the Affordable Care Act by its supporters. The nation’s 24-hour news cycle will be focused like a laser beam on the Court, but there will be no television cameras, no live radio broadcast, and no blogging, twitter, or other reporting from the courtroom.
Perceptions may have lasting impact
Even so, what the public perceives about whether the justices gave a fair hearing to both sides may have a lasting impact on public attitudes toward the judicial system at all levels. What will the public be looking for? And is the Court equipped to provide it?
Based on decades of research, the public will be looking for the elements of procedural fairness — voice, neutrality, respect, and trustworthy authorities. For the full commentary see:
blog.amjudges.org 