No cameras allowed in SCOTUS? No problem! We'll use dogs...

[40hz]

This is just too priceless for words, with thanks to Techdirt.

John Oliver Has The Solution To The Supreme Court's Refusal To Videotape Supreme Court Hearings: Dogs
from the not-cats? dept

For many years, we've discussed the pure ridiculousness of the Supreme court's adamant refusal to allow cameras in the courtroom, along with the Justices' questionable justifications of the ban. Now it appears that John Oliver has taken up the issue as well, but unlike those just whining about it, Oliver (thanks to the resources of HBO) has a possible "solution." Dogs.

Oliver starts out mocking Justice Antonin Scalia's reason for barring cameras: that people would just see 15- or 30-second clips from the arguments, taking things out of context. Of course, as Oliver points out, that makes absolutely no sense, since the Supreme Court already releases audio of the hearings, and thus we already do hear the same clips -- it's just that they're generally paired with artistic renderings of the Justices instead of the actual video.

His solution -- using "an almost immoral amount of resources" -- is to present video representations of the entire Supreme Court... using dogs (and a couple of birds in supporting roles). And, Oliver claims, they're making those videos freely available to any other news provider who would like to create complete reenactments of any court case in a way that is cute and guaranteed to draw more attention than the court renderings, or, hell, actual videos if they were ever allowed.

John Oliver! Legend.

[Renegade]

Pfft! Everything else has gone to the dogs, so why not the SCOTUS?

I pity the assistant... I can just see the assistant quacking up under the stress. Also, I might have pecked a different court stenographer, but so far so good. I'm sure she'll do an eggsellent job.

[Deozaan]

I'm sure she'll do an eggsellent job.

-Renegade (October 21, 2014, 11:13 PM)

I disagree. She seems to be one of those hunt-and-peck typists.

[Renegade]

I'm sure she'll do an eggsellent job.

-Renegade (October 21, 2014, 11:13 PM)

I disagree. She seems to be one of those hunt-and-peck typists.

-Deozaan (October 22, 2014, 04:08 AM)

Well, she does look handicapable. Perhaps whoever hired her was chicken about a lawsuit?

[app103]

I'm sure she'll do an eggsellent job.

-Renegade (October 21, 2014, 11:13 PM)

I disagree. She seems to be one of those hunt-and-peck typists.

-Deozaan (October 22, 2014, 04:08 AM)

Steno keyboards don't have as much to hunt & peck.