+3533 Only one of two photographs in existence…

AD: Meet Dug.To: Next-Gen Link Management Suite [PROMO CODE: KCS.TOP
2022-03-29 07:02:09

+3533 – Only one of two photographs in existence of the US Supreme Court in session. Cameras are forbidden in the Supreme Court, but this photograph was taken by a young woman who concealed her small camera in her handbag, cutting a hole through which the lens peeped, 1937. [568×384] (x-post)

AD: Meet Dug.To: Next-Gen Link Management Suite [PROMO CODE: KCS.TOP

Comments

comments

19 Comments
  1. Was she wearing the purse on hr head?

  2. Does anyne have a link the other photgraph?

  3. 1 of2…… that you know of.

  4. Judge 4,5,8,9 look bored out of their mind. Judge 6 has snuffed it mid session and noone had procedure on what to do with the body,so they just left it there until session ends..

    Leaving 4 judges actually gving the appearance of being engaged.

  5. I wonder how big a “small camera” was in 1937…..

  6. Before you ask why not cameras in the court, ask yourself whether or not cameras in Congress have actually helped. Yes you can watch daily live streams from inside the Capitol, but what exactly are you watching? Are you watching lawmaking happen? Or are you watching pre-designated slots for expressing opinions where nobody listens to one another, and there is no debate? Do we truly believe this is what lawmaking is?

    Do we think that making a show of the judicial process would make it any more fair? Has it helped in Congress? Or has it just created the veneer of transparency while power continues to be exercised behind closed door and the electorate is distracted by what they see on the television?

  7. Why are they allowed to ban cameras?

  8. Yep, looks…Pretty much like you’d expect.

  9. Reply
    MeasurementEasy9884 March 29, 2022 at 3:15 pm

    Why can’t there be photos of them?

  10. Wow a bunch of white men thinking. Amazing!

  11. TIL that cameras are not allowed in the Supreme Court.

  12. Can anyone create a “seating chart” for this picture? I’d love to know who’s who.

  13. The all look so lil

  14. While I agree on the ban during proceedings. It would probably do the court some good to have pictures taken by the court itself to show what the institution(s) look like in session. The ban is to protect the process, not to hide the court.

    If we take the picture posted as an example: Other than the judges, we cannot make out the face of anyone, and without the exact date & time, we don’t know the case before the court. This picture could be captioned “US Supreme Court in session, circa 1937. Shown are judges…”.

  15. Btw, why is it that in many countries, a camera is not allowed in courts?

  16. Why no cameras? Maybe so they don’t see all the judges sleeping?

  17. This photo needs to be doctored up with empty liquor bottles tipped over and such.

  18. The more I learn about the Supreme Court, the less believable it is that we live in a “democracy.”

  19. Reply
    Maligned-Instrument March 29, 2022 at 3:15 pm

    It’s supposed to protect the integrity of the court….but one only needs to look at Amy Coney-Barrett’s credentials to see thats total bullshit. Oh and Boofy Mc-grab ass Cavanaugh.

Leave a reply