Annual budget hearing turns into a platform for Justices Kennedy and Thomas to vent on issues of interest to the high court
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pushed back strongly Tuesday against a bill pending in the Senate that would require the Court to televise its proceedings.
“Mandating direct televised proceedings would be inconsistent with the deference and etiquette that should apply between the branches,” Kennedy said in response to questions from House members at the Court’s annual budget hearing April 4. “We feel very strongly that this matter should be left to the courts.”
Kennedy also spoke out forcefully in favor of a pay raise for federal judges, warning that the failure by Congress to pass salary increases is “assuming the proportions of an historic wrong.”
Every spring, justices go before a House Appropriations subcommittee seeking approval for the Court’s annual budget, which next year will total $76.4 million if passed. It is a rare and often illuminating encounter between branches, with House members asking pointed questions that put justices on the spot about a range of issues.
There was some of that on Tuesday, but to an unusual degree the hearing became a platform for Kennedy and Justice Clarence Thomas to vent about actions or inactions by Congress on matters of deep interest to the high court.
Details here from Tony Mauro of Legal Times. (again via How Appealing)
Annual budget hearing turns into a platform for Justices Kennedy and Thomas to vent on issues of interest to the high court
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pushed back strongly Tuesday against a bill pending in the Senate that would require the Court to televise its proceedings.
“Mandating direct televised proceedings would be inconsistent with the deference and etiquette that should apply between the branches,” Kennedy said in response to questions from House members at the Court’s annual budget hearing April 4. “We feel very strongly that this matter should be left to the courts.”
Kennedy also spoke out forcefully in favor of a pay raise for federal judges, warning that the failure by Congress to pass salary increases is “assuming the proportions of an historic wrong.”
Every spring, justices go before a House Appropriations subcommittee seeking approval for the Court’s annual budget, which next year will total $76.4 million if passed. It is a rare and often illuminating encounter between branches, with House members asking pointed questions that put justices on the spot about a range of issues.
There was some of that on Tuesday, but to an unusual degree the hearing became a platform for Kennedy and Justice Clarence Thomas to vent about actions or inactions by Congress on matters of deep interest to the high court.
Details here from Tony Mauro of Legal Times. (again via How Appealing)
Annual budget hearing turns into a platform for Justices Kennedy and Thomas to vent on issues of interest to the high court
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pushed back strongly Tuesday against a bill pending in the Senate that would require the Court to televise its proceedings.
“Mandating direct televised proceedings would be inconsistent with the deference and etiquette that should apply between the branches,” Kennedy said in response to questions from House members at the Court’s annual budget hearing April 4. “We feel very strongly that this matter should be left to the courts.”
Kennedy also spoke out forcefully in favor of a pay raise for federal judges, warning that the failure by Congress to pass salary increases is “assuming the proportions of an historic wrong.”
Every spring, justices go before a House Appropriations subcommittee seeking approval for the Court’s annual budget, which next year will total $76.4 million if passed. It is a rare and often illuminating encounter between branches, with House members asking pointed questions that put justices on the spot about a range of issues.
There was some of that on Tuesday, but to an unusual degree the hearing became a platform for Kennedy and Justice Clarence Thomas to vent about actions or inactions by Congress on matters of deep interest to the high court.
Details here from Tony Mauro of Legal Times. (again via How Appealing)
Join the conversation!