Supreme Court Audio in the News
Among the many headlines we saw about the Supreme Court during the first month of its new term were a few that particularly resonated with us. Over at The Oyez Project, we work with our friends at Justia to make all of the Court’s audio available to the public alongside a synchronized transcript that identifies who is speaking, whether it’s the litigants or the justices.
In October, two of the justices made the news specifically because of what they said during oral argument, and Oyez has it all. In Ramos v. Louisiana, the Court was considering Louisiana’s use of non-unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials. In a move most law professors would envy, Justice Kavanaugh set up a hypothetical and then asked a blunt question that caught the press’s attention. Want to hear it? Do this:
- Click here for the Ramos case page: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-5924
- Click the black text next to the speaker symbol under the case title to hear the audio and see the transcript.
- Using the slider under the transcript, move to the 53:20 mark.
- (Make sure your sound is turned on, or just read along to the highlighted transcript!)
The next time the Court was in the news for what was said, it was Justice Sotomayor earning the dubious distinction of being the first to break the Court’s new “two-minute rule.” Here’s the link to the case page for Kansas v. Garcia: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-834.
Once again, click the black text under the case name in the upper left of the page. Then move the slider to 28:33. But keep listening, she gets back to her question in no time!
We think the audio we make available at Oyez offers the public a unique glimpse at how the Supreme Court operates. Paired with our Bulletin Previews, these services allow court-watchers, students, and the general public a chance to understand what goes on at the Supreme Court and why it matters.
1 thought on “Supreme Court Audio in the News”
The yellow highlighting seems to advance a little bit ahead of the audio, at least in the Kansas case.