WELCOME to the debut of “The Truth Is!”, a blog of reporting and commentary that aims to be informative, thoughtful and provocative. At least initially, the blog will have a strong heartland flavor by virtue of the connection of a number of us to Cowles family journalism. I am former editor of the Des Moines Register’s opinion pages. Another contributor, Michael Gartner, is former editor of the paper; he later served as president of NBC News. Another former Register editor who has agreed to contribute, Geneva Overholser, is director of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg school of journalism. Followers of the blog will have access also to the work of Herbert Strentz of Des Moines, a close Register and other newspaper watcher who once headed Drake University’s journalism school. Bill Leonard, a longtime Register editorial writer, will add insights.

“The Truth Is!” will be supervised by my daughter, Marcia Wolff, a communications lawyer for 20 years with Arnold and Porter (Washington, D.C.). Invaluable technical assistance in assembling and maintaining the blog is provided by my grandsons Julian Cranberg, a college first-year, and Daniel Wolff, a high school senior.

If you detect a whiff of nepotism in this operation, so be it. All of it is strictly a labor of love. —Gil Cranberg

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Gilbert Cranberg: MINDLESS HIGH COURT SECRECY

Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, has been making the rounds of television interview shows to promote her recently published book, “Out of Order.” During the interviews she invariably emphasizes that the court gives written explanations for “everything it decides and does.”

Actually, O’Connor hung out with a pretty secretive crowd. Want to know which justices voted to review the high-profile California same-sex marriage case argued March 26? The Supreme Court doesn’t customarily reveal such information although the votes that determine the court’s docket are among the most consequential a justice casts. Ditto when a justice removes himself from a case. Recusals can determine the outcome of a case, but almost never does a justice publicly disclose the reasons he or she declines to participate in a decision.

Several years ago I wrote to members of the court to request an explanation for the secrecy on recusals. A majority of the court responded, perhaps because I had made a pest of myself about an unrelated court matter and they decided to humor me. In any event, the reasons the justices gave for the secrecy surrounding recusals, in their letters to me, ranged from the silly to the superficial. 

It’s possible that the Supreme Court will decide that it made a mistake when it agreed to review the California same-sex marriage dispute. If so, there will be legitimate public interest in knowing how the justices voted on the question of whether to grant review. Disclosure of the vote ought to serve as precedent for routinely revealing how all justices decide the important question of which cases to place on the court’s docket.

No comments: