On the Media: A Handy Guide to How the Supreme Court Works
Podcast Information:
- Title: On the Media
- Hosts: Brooke Gladstone and Micah Loewinger
- Producer: WNYC Studios
- Description: The Peabody Award-winning podcast explores the intricacies of media production, scrutinizes threats to free speech and government transparency, and dissects media coverage of significant stories.
- Episode: A Handy Guide to How the Supreme Court Works
- Release Date: March 23, 2022
1. Introduction: Senate Confirmation and Ketanji Brown Jackson's Nomination
The episode opens with Brooke Gladstone discussing the Senate's confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court. Given the Democratic majority in the Senate, Jackson's confirmation is largely assured. Gladstone emphasizes the profound media implications of her tenure on the highest court, noting that her decisions, dissents, and public statements will become significant media content.
Quote:
"Her ascension to the highest court in the land is all but guaranteed, with the Democrats holding a slim majority in the Senate."
— Brooke Gladstone [00:22]
2. Understanding SCOTUS Decisions: Hearings vs. Non-Hearings
Gladstone introduces the concept of how the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) operates by distinguishing between cases it chooses to hear and those it declines. The Court hears and decides on around 80 cases annually, while it declines to hear approximately 7,000 cases each year. This fundamental process is often misunderstood or misrepresented by the media.
Key Points:
- Decision to Hear: When SCOTUS takes up a case, it results in a significant decision that can have wide-reaching implications.
- Decision to Not Hear: The Court leaves lower court decisions in place, which remain applicable only within their respective jurisdictions unless other appellate courts address them.
Quote:
"The court basically does one of two things. It either decides to hear a case and issue a big decision... or it decides not to hear a case."
— Brooke Gladstone [00:22]
3. Media Coverage Pitfalls: Misinterpretations and Misleading Headlines
The podcast highlights common inaccuracies in media reporting on Supreme Court decisions. Reporters often conflate the Court's decision to hear a case with it making a substantive ruling, leading to misleading headlines such as "The Supreme Court Upholds..." when, in reality, the Court may have declined to overturn a lower court's decision.
Insights from Experts:
- Amy Howe (SCOTUS Blog): Emphasizes the distinction between affirming a decision and merely leaving it standing, which does not have nationwide effect.
- Adam Liptak (New York Times): Points out that while some decisions not to hear cases (e.g., on same-sex marriage) can be significant, many routine cases do not warrant major news alerts.
Quotes:
"Frequently you'll hear something along the lines of the Supreme Court affirmed or the Supreme Court upheld, when in fact it did nothing of the sort."
— Ira Flatow [01:23]
"When the court decides a constitutional case, it's game over. The court has the last word on the meaning of the Constitution."
— Adam Liptak [02:30]
4. The Role and Misinterpretation of Oral Arguments
Oral arguments are a critical component of the Supreme Court's process, yet they are often misunderstood by both the media and the public. The hosts discuss how oral arguments are sometimes perceived as indicators of how justices will vote, which is not necessarily accurate.
Key Insights:
- Performance vs. Decision: While a lawyer's performance during oral arguments can influence the outcome, the justices often have pre-formed opinions based on the briefs submitted.
- Justice Dynamics: Oral arguments provide justices with insights into their colleagues' perspectives, especially in a polarized court.
Quotes:
"Oral arguments are essentially theater, but they're also crucial, though not for the reason you think."
— Brooke Gladstone [05:59]
"It's very, very interesting to see someone like Justice Kennedy who always tries to come in looking as though I'm struggling with something, help me out here."
— Nina Totenberg [06:16]
5. Politicization of the Supreme Court and Confirmation Processes
The episode delves into the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court, highlighting how confirmation hearings have become highly contentious and ideologically charged. This shift contrasts with historical norms where confirmations were less politicized and more procedural.
Discussion Points:
- Historical Context: Past confirmations were less heated and focused more on qualifications rather than ideological alignment.
- Current Landscape: The Court now has a more pronounced ideological split, mirroring the broader political polarization in the United States.
Quotes:
"The confirmation process is vastly more politicized... the right wing of the court is quite a bit farther to the right than any court we've seen since the FDR court."
— Nina Totenberg [08:24]
"The whole system... has done what the rest of the country has done, which is absolutely ideologically run to the two poles with very, very little sort of in the center."
— Nina Totenberg [08:30]
6. The Debate on Televising Supreme Court Proceedings
A significant portion of the discussion centers on whether Supreme Court proceedings should be televised. Presently, the Court operates largely behind closed doors, a tradition rooted in maintaining the institution's impartiality and grandeur.
Perspectives:
- Against Televising: Justices like Adam Liptak argue that cameras would disrupt the solemnity and focus of the Court, leading to sensationalism and distraction.
- Pro Televising: Advocates believe that transparency through live broadcasts would educate the public and demystify the Court's processes.
Quotes:
"Television in the court... will have to talk together. We don't want that television in the court."
— Adam Liptak [14:16]
"I have had positive experiences with cameras. It seems somewhat perverse to exclude the television."
— Adam Liptak [14:05]
"I don't see any problem with having proceedings televised."
— Dahlia Lithwick [14:16]
7. Best Practices for Consuming Supreme Court News
Concluding the episode, the hosts provide listeners with guidance on how to effectively and accurately follow Supreme Court developments. Emphasis is placed on relying on reputable sources and experts who specialize in court reporting.
Recommendations:
- Trusted Sources: Outlets like SCOTUS Blog, The New York Times (Adam Liptak), and Washington Post (Bob Barnes) are highlighted for their accurate and timely reporting.
- Avoiding Misleading Information: Listeners are advised to be cautious of sensational headlines and to seek comprehensive analyses from knowledgeable journalists.
Quotes:
"When seeking Supreme Court news, choose a wonk, wonks rule."
— Brooke Gladstone [12:00]
"You can look at Adam Liptak at the New York Times... develop people who have not let you down."
— Dahlia Lithwick [10:26]
Conclusion
Brooke Gladstone wraps up the episode by reiterating the complexity of Supreme Court reporting and the necessity for specialized knowledge to accurately interpret and convey its proceedings. The episode serves as a valuable guide for consumers of news to navigate the often intricate and nuanced coverage of the highest court in the United States.
Final Quote:
"Court reporting is complex and sometimes esoteric, requiring hide degrees of expertise."
— Brooke Gladstone [11:13]
Additional Resources:
- For listeners interested in the "Breaking News Consumers Handbook" and other resources discussed in the episode, visit OnTheMedia.org and subscribe to their newsletter for updates and insights.