Court’s Vigor on Display

Court wrestles with complex issues.

“May it please the court,” intoned each lawyer as he began his argument before the U.S. Supreme Court at Friday’s extraordinary recorded session. Though questions from the nine justices raised doubt about how they would rule on the constitutional challenge to Florida’s Supreme Court decision regarding ballot recounts, there can be no doubt about the value of listening to the hearing, as Americans were finally permitted to do. And no question at all that live televised broadcasts should become a routine part of Supreme Court hearings.

Friday was the first time the court has allowed its proceedings to be sound-recorded. With most of the justices harboring deep antipathy toward the idea of cameras or recorders in the courtroom, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist last Monday summarily rejected a CNN request to broadcast this session. But the justices later relented somewhat, bowing to the unprecedented nature of the issues before them and keen public interest in the case. The court permitted audio recording of its session, which was broadcast as soon as the arguments were concluded.

That 90-minute recording, aired on radio and television, revealed the justices seemingly at odds and searching hard for answers on the question of whether the Florida court had overstepped its authority in extending a deadline for vote-counting in the state. Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the court’s most conservative members, said the Florida ruling created a “real problem.” Yet the more liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, responding to George W. Bush lawyer Theodore B. Olson, noted that the high court had never “impugned a state supreme court in the way you have.” Other justices, including Anthony M. Kennedy, probed Olson and Al Gore lawyer Laurence H. Tribe on whether there is any federal question at issue in this case.

The justices gave no indication when they will issue a decision. And while predicting how or when the court will rule can be the province of psychics or fools, it’s safe to say a unanimous decision doesn’t appear likely. That’s unfortunate since a decision that splits the court’s liberal and conservative members would only exacerbate the already bitter partisan wrangling over the questions raised in Flordia’s vote count.

Friday’s hearing should, however, settle the question of whether cameras and audio recorders belong in the high court. Contrary to the justices’ fears, the lawyers did not grandstand; in fact, given frequent questions from the bench, they sometimes had trouble getting a word in edgewise. Instead, Americans were treated to a fascinating debate over the limits of state and federal power, forcefully argued. It’s an experience that bears repeating, may it please the court.