Hidden camera footage surfaces of Supreme Court debate

[boston bean]

Hidden camera footage of what appeared to be Supreme Court proceedings from earlier this week surfaced on Thursday, offering one the of the first public recordings of the High Court's proceedings.

A video posted on YouTube and recorded by 99 Rise, a group that supports tougher campaign finance laws, shows proceedings leading up to and during a rare protest that took place in the court Wednesday.

Noah Kai Newkirk, a leader of the group, is seen in the video standing up and calling on the court to overturn the 2010 Citizens United ruling that opened the door to corporate political donations and led to the creation of super-PACs.

“I rise on behalf of the vast majority of American people who believe that money is not speech, corporations are not people, and our democracy should not be for sale to the highest bidder,” Newkirk shouts during Wednesday's oral arguments.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/199535-video-of-scotus-arguments-surfaces

[Baitball Blogger]

1. What a brave young man.

Let us know if he needs bail money. I'll contribute.

[L0oniX]

2. ^^^this^^^

[Jim Lane]

3. Did this brave young man's actions make it more likely that the Court would rule his way?

Did he make it less likely?

Or did he have no effect on the decision at all?

I'll assess the probabilities at: no effect, 90%; less likely that the Court will do as he urged, 10%; more likely that the Court will do as he urged, 0%.

You'll note that I'm assessing probable effects on the decision, which is what I care about. There are other effects. Probability that he'll feel all self-righteous about speaking truth to power, 100%; probability that the video will make him a hero to many of the people who already agreed with his position, 100%; probability that the video will change a significant number of minds among the people who didn't already agree with his position, 0%.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. At least, someone did something.

Saying nothing would have produced a 100% probability that the case would go forward.

[Jim Lane]

5. In my opinion he did something harmful, but, yes, I must admit that he did something.

I don't know what you mean when you say that "the case would go forward." It will go forward regardless. The Justices, having heard the oral arguments, will discuss the case in conference, take a vote, send around drafts of opinions, finalize their decision, and announce it.

If you mean that, without his disruption, there was a 100% probability that the case would be decided in favor of unlimited campaign spending, and that his action reduced the probability of such an outcome, then I disagree with both propositions.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Scalia & Co. are not going to budge.

They are compromised philosophically & politically and are tone deaf to what anyone says outside their groups. You are wrong if you think that what that young man did was going to make a bad situation any worse than it already is.

[Jim Lane]

7. Scalia is a malevolent influence but he's not omnipotent.

The key swing vote, Kennedy, sides with Scalia more often than not, but not always. On your theory it's hard to explain how our side ever wins in the current Supreme Court (as we did, for example, with the invalidation of the key provision of DOMA, with Scalia and his three usual hard-core right-wing cronies in dissent, or as we did with an earlier lineup -- Souter and Stevens then being in the liberal bloc -- in the 5-4 decision holding that Gitmo detainees have habeas corpus rights).

There have been reports that Obama, in selecting his Supreme Court nominees, has given some weight to picking the person who, in the Court's internal deliberations, would be most likely to influence Kennedy. I don't know if that's true but it wouldn't surprise me. It would be a sensible pragmatic consideration.

The political reality is that there are two fairly solid blocs on the Court: Breyer-Ginsburg-Kagan-Sotomayor and Alito-Roberts-Scalia-Thomas. (This lineup isn't invariant, as in Roberts's vote to uphold most of the ACA, but it's pretty strong.) That means that contemporary Supreme Court litigation usually comes down to figuring out how to get Anthony Kennedy's vote.

The conduct shown in this video is more likely to alienate Kennedy than to appeal to him.

[G_j]

8. Everything he said was true and stated in a respectful tone.

That THIS would be considered harmful in a "democracy" is the scariest thing of all.

[Jim Lane]

9. Well, your idea of democracy is different from mine.

Here's the current system for deciding Supreme Court cases: Each party puts in a written brief, and nonparties who apply for amicus curiae status are almost always allowed to put in briefs, too. Then there's an oral argument where lawyers for each side get equal amounts of time and aren't allowed to interrupt each other or try to drown each other out.

I gather that your preferred system is that anyone in the audience -- progressive activist, Tea Partier, religious fundie, 9/11 truther -- can pop up at any time and spout off (provided the speaker maintains a respectful tone, as determined by you or by the Chief Justice or by someone else).

Call me a lackey of the corrupt corporatist establishment, if you will, but I like the current system better.

[G_j]

10. certainly this activist fully expected to be removed from the proceedings, as should anyone else

practicing such civil disobedience.

http://www.transcendentalists.com/civil_disobedience.htm
http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/martin-luther-king-jr-and-civil-disobedience-2996666.html