In the New York Times editorial titled "An Open Court", the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press proposed that the United States Supreme Court begin allowing the public to inspect all documents filed in or by the court. According to the article, the Supreme Court's adoption of this rule would enhance the transparency of justice and nurture a healthy democracy. The First Amendment's right to free speech and press are intended to add to the idea of an informed self-government that is prevalent. The court contends, however, that certain records, especially in criminal cases, may be limited because of the overall nature of the case.
I personally believe that this rule would be very beneficial. Of the three branches of government, I think the Supreme Court does not have a clear rule that ensures transparency. This rule would compel the Supreme While most of the Supreme Court rulings and cases are published online and in different texts, allowing the public to inspect any and all documents filed in or by the court would be a good way for the public to inform itself. People would become more suspicious of the judicial branch if it began restricting access to information.
-Natasha Daulat
I agree with Natasha in that if such a rule was implemented, allowing members of the public to inspect documents filed by the court, that the general public would have a more secure outlook on the transparency of our court system. If such a rule were set into place however, the nature of some criminal cases should in my opinion, be limited as to which documents be made available to the public, because not all documents filed in criminal cases of extreme nature are beneficial to the public eye. Historically popular public opinion and faith in the transparency of our court system is below the level at which our government would like it to be, and if such a rule were implemented, I feel that it would allow the public to be better informed on the matters in which they have interest and concern.
ReplyDelete