This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-teleconference-hearings-bookingcom/2020/05/03/f5902bd6-8d76-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_homepage
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court takes modest but historic step with teleconference hearings | Supreme Court takes modest but historic step with teleconference hearings |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments by teleconference Monday, taking a historic but modest step into the technological present. | |
| Forced from gathering in their grand courtroom because of the threats presented by the coronavirus, the justices will remotely hear 10 cases over the next two weeks. They are drawn from cases postponed in March and April. The justices have not sat as a group since March 9, doing their work and issuing opinions since then remotely. | Forced from gathering in their grand courtroom because of the threats presented by the coronavirus, the justices will remotely hear 10 cases over the next two weeks. They are drawn from cases postponed in March and April. The justices have not sat as a group since March 9, doing their work and issuing opinions since then remotely. |
| Supreme Court announces remote hearings for first time | Supreme Court announces remote hearings for first time |
| The justices will remain scattered, and the advocates will present their cases from basements and conference rooms in Washington and around the country. | The justices will remain scattered, and the advocates will present their cases from basements and conference rooms in Washington and around the country. |
| And with a live feed going to the media, anyone around the world can listen in. The Supreme Court doesn’t allow cameras in its courtroom, has never allowed simultaneous audio broadcasts and only rarely even allows tapes of its hearings to be released the same day. | |
| Various media groups intend to air the arguments live, a transcript and tape of the proceedings also will be posted on the court’s website supremecourt.gov | |
| The court is starting slowly, with only one argument Monday, and additional sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday. Next week, it will consider President Trump’s battle to keep his financial records from being turned over to congressional committees and a New York prosecutor. | |
| Supreme Court hearings will offer all the grandeur of working from home | Supreme Court hearings will offer all the grandeur of working from home |
| Those tuning in Monday may wonder what the fuss is all about. While the arguments feature two veteran advocates, the case involves a trademark dispute between the federal bureaucracy and a website that assists in booking hotel rooms, Booking.com | |
| The question is whether a generic word such as booking can be recognized as a mark just by adding “.com” to it. Lower courts ruled for the company. | The question is whether a generic word such as booking can be recognized as a mark just by adding “.com” to it. Lower courts ruled for the company. |
| Washington lawyer Lisa S. Blatt is arguing on behalf of Booking.com from her dining room in northwest D.C. Justice Department lawyer Erica Ross intended to don the traditional morning coat worn by government lawyers who appear before the high court, and make her case to a speakerphone in the solicitor general’s conference room. | |
| Supreme Court oral arguments bear little resemblance to courtroom dramas as seen on television. The rhetoric is legalistic, relying heavily on the court’s precedents. Those who have not studied the case beforehand often have trouble following the conversation. | Supreme Court oral arguments bear little resemblance to courtroom dramas as seen on television. The rhetoric is legalistic, relying heavily on the court’s precedents. Those who have not studied the case beforehand often have trouble following the conversation. |
| The court granted Blatt two minutes for an opening statement. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked the first question followed by Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely asks questions at oral argument, and then Ruth Bader Ginsburg. | |