Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Analysis: Supreme Court Would Look ‘Dumb’ Televised

by Momosa Fabrekante, TYDN Legal Affairs Writer 
WASHINGTON -- (TYDN) The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly resists calls to televise its proceedings because the court would appear to viewers as dumb, out of touch and devoid of reality, TheYellowDailyNews has learned.


The high court’s nine justices have opposed airing their proceedings, publicly saying that doing so could compromise decorum, alter what are normally sedate proceedings and would prompt litigators and perhaps the justices to play to the camera.


But new evidence, based on an exhaustive analysis by TheYellowDailyNews that included reviewing more than 200 years of precedent and protocol, has found that the justices refrain from airing oral arguments because they don’t want the public to see how inane the process is, and how completely out of touch it is to everyday Americans.


Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Analysts said TheYellowDailyNews’ investigation was the first time the media has seriously questioned the high court’s broadcasting policy in the modern era.


“Nobody would have a clue as to what we’re talking about,” one of the justices said in an exclusive interview with TheYellowDailyNews on condition of anonymity. “We use words like ‘affirm’ all the time to mean ‘execute him.’ Joe Sixpack cannot process that.”


Until now, a leading yet little-discussed theory about why the court was not televised concerned Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s generous use of hair activator.



“She would appear schlumpy on television,” University of Virginia Supreme Court scholar A. E. Dick Howard told TheYellowDailyNews in an exclusive interview. “I can’t think of a more prescient reason for banning television. The public would lose focus on the arguments and wonder when her hair would catch fire.”


Sotomayor declined comment on a scandal that has become known in legal circles as “ActivatorGate.”


Others blasted TheYellowDailyNews’ investigation. They maintained the ActivatorGate theory was rubbish.


“Let’s face it,” a well placed media executive with direct knowledge of the situation told TheYellowDailyNews on condition of anonymity, “no network would even carry the broadcast. Even reality TV has its limits.”
Photo: ajagendorf25/Flickr

1 comment:

Lena Harris said...

I beg to disagree with Supreme Court's opinion regarding the airing of its proceedings. The Supreme Court, being a public office, must be open to public scrutiny in all of its undertakings. It is the duty and responsibility of the office to mirror honesty.

class action lawyer