On the Air

This past month,  Justice Sonia Sotomayor has come forward against allowing cameras in the Supreme Court. These cameras would broadcast the courtroom proceedings over television and possibly stream footage to the Internet. The article can be found here.

Sotomayor supports her stance against recording courtrooms with the reasoning that viewers would not understand what was going on. In an interview, she said that  "Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate." She believes that someone watching the case at home would not see the full case and make assumptions. A viewer's opinion of her would be skewed without context. 

However, Sotomayor is not the only Justice against this. Justice Elena Kagan also has criticisms about televising the courts: she fears that "people might play to the camera" in  an attempt to make themselves more appealing to the public. I do see why this would be a concern, but witnesses in court are sworn to the truth. However, I don't see why witnesses or defendants playing to the cameras would have any effect on the outcome of the trial. Anyone viewing at home has no bearing on the trial, and both sides are already trying to convince the justices that their side is the right one. Appealing to others would get them nowhere. 

What do you think? Should the public have the ability to see what goes on in America's Supreme Court? do you think camera coverage change anything about the trials? Post your thoughts in the comments below. 

Shots Fired

This past week, former police officer Christopher Jordan Dorner set off a mass police search after attempting to take revenge on the LAPD. On Thursday, a blue Toyota Tacoma became the target for a hail of gunfire by several police officers when  they suspected it was his truck. The article about this can be found here. 

The two occupants of the truck escaped with their lives, but they were injured. Despite this, I still think that a mistake lie this is unacceptable. Had the vehicle in this situation matched Dorner's, I would understand their reaction. However, Dorner's truck that the police were looking for was a gray Nissan Titan. While the two trucks look somewhat similar, the colors were entirely different. The police should have exercised a lot more discretion before opening fire. A show-of-force or other tactic should have been used before shooting. 

What do you think? What could have the officers done differently? Were they right to fire when they did? Post your thoughts in the comments below?

On Target

On Saturday, the White House released a picture of President Barack Obama shooting a shotgun. The picture is from last August when he was at Camp David for his 51st birthday. The accompanying article can be found here.

 

The release of this picture seems like Obama is trying to show that he sympathises with the conservative gun owners. He owns at least one gun, and he knows how to use it. Why would he want to take yours away? Obama also stated that he has " a profound respect for the traditions of hunting." This would suggest that he acknowledges those who advocate for second amendment rights for hunting and sport. 

I think that while it might take a bit more to convince everyone that he isn't completely set on taking away everyone's guns, this is a good step in the right direction. Having evidence that he is familiar with firearms is much better than only saying that he understands them. What do you think? Was releasing this picture a good move for the White House? What results might come from this? Post your thoughts in the comments below .