The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Justice Kavanaugh were disrupted by protesters.
The Senate floor vote on Justice Kavanaugh was disrupted by protesters.
Justice Kavanaugh's first day hearing oral arguments was not disrupted by protesters, as some had feared it might be. See this post by Mark Walsh at SCOTUSblog.
Why the difference? Some might say that after the confirmation vote it no longer made a difference, but I do not believe that the disruptive protesters were actually there to make a difference in the outcome.
I think the difference is that the Senate proceedings were video-broadcast live and the Supreme Court proceedings were not.
Many state high courts and federal courts of appeals stream their oral arguments live. That is very handy for those of us who are involved in the case or simply interested in it but who are not participating in oral argument.
The U.S. Supreme Court, though, is unique. Its proceedings attract far greater interest. A high-profile case may have a large portion of the nation interested, and it may make prime time television news or the front page of major newspapers. That is true of other courts only once in a blue moon, but it is regularly true of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A few lawyers -- not many but a few -- might think that grandstanding during oral argument will get them a video byte on national news and do it even if it is not good advocacy for their client. Some spectators might think that it is worth getting arrested, especially if they are backed by a billionaire who will provide counsel and bail and pay the fine.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court should not stream its arguments live but instead should make them available on video largely the same way it presently does in audio. Have one camera, controlled by the court, that records the arguments, and post the video on the court's website one or more days after the argument. Edit out any disruptions.
