Could not agree more. To me these two are the ones least likely to generate obnoxious partisan reactions. That was one of the more substantive and civil hearings I have seen in some time.
For the most part the public's view is not a problem of too little exposure. The public says it likes many of the court's most controversial decisions but still has an overall impression that the court is not working appropriately. Despite the court broadcasting more aspects of its proceedings, its "ratings" have declined. Is there any empirical evidence from the practices of other courts that show a positive correlation between specific practices and the public's view of them? One might be slightly skeptical that the views of those who closely follow the court are reflective of the public's views in general.
How unfortunate that justice Kagan began by expressing heartfelt condolences on the passing of Lindsey Graham. Why? This was unnecessary and reeks of groveling with no bearing on the request for additional security measures.
Feels way, way way more like inter-branch comity to me.
And if you really, truly don't think that an expression of sympathy after the passing of a colleague could (simply as a purely instrumental matter) engender any sympathy toward the commentary to follow (and thereby get better results of the request), well, I'm gonna heartily disagree. :-)
Could not agree more. To me these two are the ones least likely to generate obnoxious partisan reactions. That was one of the more substantive and civil hearings I have seen in some time.
For the most part the public's view is not a problem of too little exposure. The public says it likes many of the court's most controversial decisions but still has an overall impression that the court is not working appropriately. Despite the court broadcasting more aspects of its proceedings, its "ratings" have declined. Is there any empirical evidence from the practices of other courts that show a positive correlation between specific practices and the public's view of them? One might be slightly skeptical that the views of those who closely follow the court are reflective of the public's views in general.
How unfortunate that justice Kagan began by expressing heartfelt condolences on the passing of Lindsey Graham. Why? This was unnecessary and reeks of groveling with no bearing on the request for additional security measures.
Feels way, way way more like inter-branch comity to me.
And if you really, truly don't think that an expression of sympathy after the passing of a colleague could (simply as a purely instrumental matter) engender any sympathy toward the commentary to follow (and thereby get better results of the request), well, I'm gonna heartily disagree. :-)