Yesterday a story about a blog post from a federal judge in Nebraska appointed by George H. W. Bush went viral.  Understandably so. The judge literally told the Supreme Court to shut the f*ck up:

 

“Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent–this term and several past terms have proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids say, it is time for the Court to stfu”.

That’s kind of kickass on it’s own. A federal judge appointed by a Republican president tells the five dudes on the Supreme Court that not only was their decision stupid but they should really stop embarrassing the bench.

I loved the story. It was great. It went viral. Awesome sauce. Here’s what struck me, though: this federal judge has a blog. Seriously!

What you may not know is that one of the most highly-trafficked legal websites that doesn’t provide case law research is SCOTUSBlog.com. It’s where EVERYONE goes – and where everyone went last week while waiting for the decisions to be handed down from the bench on these cases. But SCOTUSBlog can’t get a seat in the press box for the Supreme Court because the US Senate Daily Press Gallery doesn’t consider them journalists. All appeals by these smart folks were denied. No offense to the Press Gallery, but I’m fairly certain that among the more than 50,000 people on SCOTUSBlog waiting for decisions were journalists who needed someone to explain to them what these rulings meant.

By that same token, how is it that a federal judge in Nebraska is more transparent than the highest court in the land? How is it that we as a country are constantly up in arms about government transparency when we require it for our state and federal leaders, but we don’t for our courts?

There have been several arguments against transparency (specifically cameras in the courts) from the Justices themselves. They believe it would undermine the court, it would diminish the authority somehow, or it would create a spectacle.

During the confirmation hearing of Justice Sonia Sotomayor 2009, she was asked if she was open to the idea of cameras in the Supreme Court.   “I have had positive experiences with cameras,” she said. “When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered.” But later,  Justice Sotomayor flip-flopped.

Here’s the thing: The court has kind of already made a spectacle of itself. There are so many allegations of improper behavior from this court. There are questionable ethics, lack of recusals when there should be, conflicts of interest, even racism.

If they’re not going to be on TV, if they won’t let SCOTUSBlog.com in to report, fine.  At least there’s one judge taking to the internet.