Last Saturday, during the #Arguendo #postshow discussion, the topic of the SCOTUS justices’ unfamiliarity with modern technology was brought up. Today, @itsapun shared these articles (this one and this one) with us via Twitter providing some “of the moment” opinions on the topic:

A key excerpt:

NEW YORK MAGAZINE (The Daily Intelligencer): ”The average age of the Supreme Court justices is old. As such, their familiarity with technology varies. For instance, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is 59, is pretty savvy. During today’s arguments in the Aereo case — read Kevin Roose’s explainer here — she mentioned that she owns a Roku streaming device, which works with Netflix, Hulu, HBO, and more. Justice Antonin Scalia, 78, on the other hand, is still figuring out how premium cable works.” (Read more here.)

More on the Aereo case here.


Questions on cameras and TV access to the inside of the Supreme Court are often brought up in our Arguendo #postshow discussions! Here’s a current example of how press access can impact reporting.

POLITICO: SCOTUSblog denied press credentials
April 16 by Hadas Gold

SCOTUSblog, the Peabody Award-winning blog that covers the Supreme Court “gavel-to-gavel,” has been denied a Senate press pass, which in turn means it cannot be issued a press credential for the Supreme Court. The site’s publisher said in a post it will appeal the decision and may litigate the issue if necessary.

As SCOTUSblog’s publisher, Tom Goldstein, explained in a post on Wednesday, the Supreme Court looks to credentials issued by the Senate Press Gallery before issuing its. Though SCOTUSblog succeeded in obtaining a Senate press pass last year, the court declined to recognize the credential, explaining that it would instead review its credentialing policy.

CONTINUE reading here.


Part II of our "A Woolly Mammoth Series: Expression vs. Censorship" features artist and activist Michael Dax Iacovone, who was one of the co-founders of the Museum of Censored Art in 2010. 

Watch below. Like, reblog, and add your thoughts!


We’re taking our Arguendo post-show discussions online! "A Woolly Mammoth Series: Expression vs. Censorship" is a three part video mini-doc (shot and edited by Woolly’s AV Engineer and Digital Media Coordinator Aaron Fisher) and features Burlesque performer GiGi Holliday, artist and activist Michael Dax Iacovone, and Jim Fitzpatrick—senior partner at Arnold & Porter LCP—speak on expression vs. censorship.

Check the series out below. Like, reblog, and add your own thoughts!


Arguendo is featured in today’s Slate Political Gabfest, a Slate podcast features Emily Bazelon, Slate senior editr; John Dickerson, Slate’s chief political correspondent; and David Plotz, Slate editor.

Emily and David joined Elevator Repair Service Artistic Director John Collins for the Arguendo post show discussion discussion on April 2 and even bought along Slate writer Hanna Rosin.

Check out the podcast below and listen in closely around the 37:50 mark!


For a little bit of Arguendo source material to dig into, check out this C-SPAN January 1991 footage of interviews with Wayne Uhl, then the Deputy Attorney General of Indiana; Bruce Ennis, then attorney for the Glen Theatre; and professional dancer Rebecca Robertson.

These interviews took place outside on the Court steps.

Click on the image (or here) to watch the video and read more.

article/ video:

Outburst in the Court! How, was a protest group able to infiltrate the highest Court in the US with media equipment? This shaky footage is the only footage ever taken from the inside of the Court!

Adam Liptak, the NY Times Supreme Court Correspondent and the author of the story below, will join us for the Saturday April 19 (8pm) post-show discussion. See the full list of Arguendo post-show panelists and moderators here.

THE NY TIMESRare Supreme Court Outburst Caught on Even Rarer Videos
February 2014 by Adam Liptak

The videos, which are brief and shaky, represent a major breach of Supreme Court security. Visitors to the courtroom pass through metal detectors and are told they may not bring electronic devices into the courtroom. The court has never allowed camera coverage of its proceedings.

On Wednesday, Noah Newkirk of Los Angeles stood in the back of the courtroom during the argument of a patent case. “Money is not speech,” he said, in a loud, calm tone. “Corporations are not people.”

He urged the court to “overturn Citizens United.” There was no reaction from the justices.

CONTINUE reading here.
(Video accompanies the original NY Times article.)


Slate’s Emily Bazelon, who wrote the article on Arguendo below, will be moderating the Wednesday, April 2 post-show panel! See the full list of Arguendo post-show panelists and moderators here.

SLATE: Thigh Court: How a theater company turned a SCOTUS case about nude dancing into a rollicking new play.
October 2013 by Emily Bazelon


About a year and a half ago, John Collins asked me to help him make a piece of art. John directs a theater company called the Elevator Repair Service, and his invitation was at once implausible and irresistible: He wanted help creating a play—real live entertainment—from a Supreme Court oral argument. Performed verbatim.

I’d heard of Elevator Repair Service because its production of Gatz, a seven-hour, unabridged dramatic reading of The Great Gatsby, got rave reviews. I’d never met John, though, so his first email was a surprise, especially given the subject. He wanted to talk Supreme Court.

John is actually a court junkie—one of those people who follow the court purely because he’s interested in its work. He’d figured out a few years earlier that it’s possible to download audio files of the court’s oral arguments. He’d started with Eldred v. Ashcroft, a major 2002 copyright ruling, because he was wondering if he had any hope of making a fair-use claim for Gatz’s appropriation of The Great Gatsby. (No, he didn’t.) From there, he’d branched out to all kinds of cases and then come back to the First Amendment and other rulings related to it. Mining that vein, he found the argument in Barnes v. Glen Theater, the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision about whether South Bend, Ind., had the right to ban nude dancing. (The ordinance in question required dancers at the Kitty Kat Lounge to wear pasties and a G-string.) The case turned on whether this kind of performance counts as art and is thus a protected form of free expression.

CONTINUE reading here.
(Image from Slate via Elevator Repair Service)