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

The transcript discusses the potential televising of court hearings, highlighting Justice David Souter's strong opposition based on his experience with televised proceedings in New Hampshire. He believed that televising could lead to misunderstandings and self-censorship among judges. The speaker argues that televising appellate hearings gives a false impression of the process, which is more focused on written arguments than oral debates. The importance of thorough reading and preparation by judges before hearings is emphasized, countering the notion that appellate arguments are like debates.

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

• It would make the proceedings more entertaining.

• It would lead to self-censorship and misinterpretation.

• It would increase public interest in the judiciary.

• It would improve the quality of legal arguments.

Why does televising appellate hearings give a wrong impression of appellate advocacy?

• Because it makes the judges appear biased.

• Because it emphasizes the written arguments over oral debates.

• Because it focuses on the visual aspects of the trial.

• Because it shortens the duration of the hearings.

What is the primary focus of appellate advocacy according to the speaker?

• Public perception and media coverage.

• Oral arguments and debates.

• The charisma of the lawyers.

• Reading and understanding written opinions.

How do justices prepare for appellate hearings?

• By watching previous televised hearings.

• By reading trial court opinions and briefs.

• By attending public debates.

• By consulting with media experts.

What does the term 'hot bench' refer to in the context of appellate advocacy?

• Judges who are actively engaged and well-prepared.

• A bench that is televised live.

• A panel of judges who are undecided.

• A courtroom with high public attendance.