Ruth Bader Ginsberg Says Cameras in Court Give 'the Wrong Impression'

The transcript discusses Justice David Souter's strong opposition to televising Supreme Court hearings, citing concerns about public misunderstanding and the potential for advocates to perform for the camera. It highlights the difference between trial and appellate advocacy, emphasizing that appeals are more focused on written arguments. Judges prepare extensively by reading trial court opinions and briefs before hearings, which can lead to preconceived leanings. The transcript argues that televising appellate arguments gives a misleading impression that they are akin to debates, which is not the case.

What was Justice David Souter's main concern about televising court hearings?

• It would improve the quality of legal arguments.

• It would increase public interest in the judiciary.

• It would lead to advocates acting for the camera.

• It would make the proceedings more transparent.

Why does televising appellate hearings give a wrong impression?

• Because appeals are more about written arguments than oral debates.

• Because it increases the cost of the hearings.

• Because it distracts the judges.

• Because it makes the hearings too lengthy.

What is the primary focus of appellate advocacy?

• Written arguments

• Oral debates

• Public opinion

• Media coverage

What is the first step justices take in preparing for appellate arguments?

• Reading trial court opinions

• Discussing with other justices

• Watching televised trials

• Reading the lawyers' briefs

How do justices approach the bench during appellate arguments?

• With a focus on public opinion

• With preconceived leanings

• With a reliance on media reports

• With an empty mind