Supreme Court cancels courtroom argument for rest of the term

[camille70]

The Supreme Court officially canceled its scheduled oral arguments for April because of health threats caused by the coronavirus pandemic, and left in doubt how the justices will finish their term.

The court already had postponed March arguments, which means about 20 cases — including President Trump’s attempts to keep his financial records from congressional committees and a Manhattan prosecutor — are left in limbo.

“The court will consider rescheduling some cases from the March and April sessions before the end of the term, if circumstances permit in light of public health and safety guidance at that time,” public information officer Kathleen Arberg said in news release. “The court will consider a range of scheduling options and other alternatives if arguments cannot be held in the courtroom before the end of the term.”




https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...olitics&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

 

[grasping the after wind]

The Supreme Court officially canceled its scheduled oral arguments for April because of health threats caused by the coronavirus pandemic, and left in doubt how the justices will finish their term.

The court already had postponed March arguments, which means about 20 cases — including President Trump’s attempts to keep his financial records from congressional committees and a Manhattan prosecutor — are left in limbo.

“The court will consider rescheduling some cases from the March and April sessions before the end of the term, if circumstances permit in light of public health and safety guidance at that time,” public information officer Kathleen Arberg said in news release. “The court will consider a range of scheduling options and other alternatives if arguments cannot be held in the courtroom before the end of the term.”




https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...olitics&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

I don't know what the Constitution requires on this but perhaps they could hear and adjudicate cases without being physically present ? I know the Constitution requires a quorum be physically present in Congress but I do not know about the SC.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't know why they couldn't do this electronically. There's no jury, a fairly simple process, and only a handful of participants - a decent Zoom setup ought to be able to handle this without breaking a sweat.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't know why they couldn't do this electronically. There's no jury, a fairly simple process, and only a handful of participants - a decent Zoom setup ought to be able to handle this without breaking a sweat.

Seems reasonable to me too. In a quick scan, I don't see anything in the Constitution to prohibit it.

 

[Goonie]

I don't know why they couldn't do this electronically. There's no jury, a fairly simple process, and only a handful of participants - a decent Zoom setup ought to be able to handle this without breaking a sweat.

Until some right/left wing nuts break into the zoom meeting. It is not secure.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Until some right/left wing nuts break into the zoom meeting. It is not secure.

Well maybe Zoom would not be appropriate but I am sure the Federal government can secure some line of communication that would suffice.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know what the Constitution requires on this but perhaps they could hear and adjudicate cases without being physically present ? I know the Constitution requires a quorum be physically present in Congress but I do not know about the SC.

Maybe they should adapt their rules to the modern age and rule on the fact that "virtually present" and "physically present" accomplish the same things when using video conferencing

 

[camille70]

I can't find the link right now but another link said they can decide cases based only on the briefs without oral arguments.

Also this:

That suggests the justices might hear argument by phone or video conference, as many of the nation's courts have begun doing since the pandemic hit.

Some of the March and April cases could also be held over until next term, which begins in October, and some could be decided based entirely on the extensive written briefs.

The court continues to do business, issuing orders and opinions. The justices are no longer meeting together but are instead conducted business by teleconference. A court spokeswoman said all nine remain healthy.

Supreme Court cancels oral arguments for rest of the term

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well maybe Zoom would not be appropriate but I am sure the Federal government can secure some line of communication that would suffice.

Considering how many yahoos in the administration blab classified info over their personal, unsecured cell phones, it seems unlikely.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Considering how many yahoos in the administration blab classified info over their personal, unsecured cell phones, it seems unlikely.

I thought disseminating classified information was no big deal. What reasonable prosecutor would consider it so?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Maybe they should adapt their rules to the modern age and rule on the fact that "virtually present" and "physically present" accomplish the same things when using video conferencing

Pretending a thing is something that it is not probably is not the best idea. Perhaps if someone wants to change the Constitution they ought to do so by the rules that are set out and not by some pretense.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I thought disseminating classified information was no big deal. What reasonable prosecutor would consider it so?

Certainly none in the current administration... not if they want to keep their job.

 

[BobRyan]

Pretending a thing is something that it is not probably is not the best idea. .

Agreed. We don't use "pretending" when in corporate America we schedule video conferencing instead of physical snail-mail meetings. Internet is much more effective than sneaker-net when you have a distributed group (distributed in more than one way as it turns out today)

 

[grasping the after wind]

Agreed. We don't use "pretending" when in corporate America we schedule video conferencing instead of physical snail-mail meetings. Internet is much more effective than sneaker-net when you have a distributed group (distributed in more than one way as it turns out today)

Physically present legally means physically present not virtually present . One cannot go to the Supreme Court and pretend they are the same thing. There is a very well spelled out way to change the Constitution. Changing it through rationalization is not part of that process.