Grassley News
Senate Committee Approves Grassley-Coons Officer Safety Act... Read More >>
Opening Statement at the Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing with FBI Director Robert Mu... Read More >>
Transparency is Good Medicine for the Supreme Court
Last week, I asked the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to allow audio and video coverage of the oral arguments made during the court’s consideration of the challenges to the 2010 health care law.
This law is massive in size and scope. Its effect is reverberating throughout America’s economy. The constitutional questions are landmark. Considering how this case can have an effect on the lives of nearly every American, it only seems right that the general public have a right to hear and see the legal arguments in real time, not just the select few who are fortunate enough to get seats in the courtroom.
It’s a tremendous educational opportunity, especially considering the way this controversial law was pushed through Congress. It was very partisan, unlike previous legislation where major social policy changes were made with broad-based support. And, so much about the policy changes and consequences from the 2010 health care law were unclear even to supporters when it was pushed through.
The first time I appealed for broadcast coverage of oral arguments before the Supreme Court was in 2000 in the Bush v. Gore case regarding the presidential election. The request for audio was granted, and it was released immediately following the arguments. Since then, the Chief Justice has released the audio of oral arguments of other significant cases. This is helpful, but more can be done and should be done. This is an historic opportunity for the Chief Justice.
I’ve sought to pass legislation allowing broadcast coverage of federal courtrooms for 12 years. My legislation gets right at the heart of an open and transparent government.
The issues with the 2010 health care law and this review by the Supreme Court of the United States emphasize the value and importance of public access to the courtroom. Sunshine would shed light on the law and enhance understanding of the issues and important concerns.
November 21, 2011
Last week, I asked the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to allow audio and video coverage of the oral arguments made during the court’s consideration of the challenges to the 2010 health care law.
This law is massive in size and scope. Its effect is reverberating throughout America’s economy. The constitutional questions are landmark. Considering how this case can have an effect on the lives of nearly every American, it only seems right that the general public have a right to hear and see the legal arguments in real time, not just the select few who are fortunate enough to get seats in the courtroom.
It’s a tremendous educational opportunity, especially considering the way this controversial law was pushed through Congress. It was very partisan, unlike previous legislation where major social policy changes were made with broad-based support. And, so much about the policy changes and consequences from the 2010 health care law were unclear even to supporters when it was pushed through.
The first time I appealed for broadcast coverage of oral arguments before the Supreme Court was in 2000 in the Bush v. Gore case regarding the presidential election. The request for audio was granted, and it was released immediately following the arguments. Since then, the Chief Justice has released the audio of oral arguments of other significant cases. This is helpful, but more can be done and should be done. This is an historic opportunity for the Chief Justice.
I’ve sought to pass legislation allowing broadcast coverage of federal courtrooms for 12 years. My legislation gets right at the heart of an open and transparent government.
The issues with the 2010 health care law and this review by the Supreme Court of the United States emphasize the value and importance of public access to the courtroom. Sunshine would shed light on the law and enhance understanding of the issues and important concerns.
November 21, 2011