A date with the 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court

My colleagues and me at the U.S. Supreme Court.

My visit to the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday reminded me of a lot of things back home in Ghana. The Supreme Court in Ghana has been very busy since the opposition New Patriotic Party decided to contest the presidential results of the Dec. 7 elections. Never has the Supreme Court in Ghana been as busy in the history of 1992 constitution as it has been these few weeks. Of course, the court has sat on some landmark cases, but none has generated much interest like this.
And so I was at the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was not as busy as the Ghana Supreme Court. The U.S Supreme Court has ruled on some landmark cases that have drawn both national and international attention.
I have been a keen follower of the U.S. Supreme Court since Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009, the fourth woman to serve on the court and the first Hispanic. This was because two years earlier, then President John Kufuor had appointed Ghana’s first female Chief Justice Georgina Wood. Indeed the only time I have heard her speak was when she was swearing in Vice President Joe Biden. Seeing her drill some of the U.S top lawyers who had come to argue their cases out gave me an entire different side of her. This was Sotomayor the judge sitting on a case at the U.S. Supreme Court and not Sotomayor swearing in the second gentleman of U.S.
I am not the only secret admirer of the first Hispanic woman to reach the highest pedestal of the U.S. judiciary. My colleagues Jess Miller and Jasmine Aguilera are also avowed fans of Sotomayor. It was therefore not a surprise when we were all moving from seat to seat to get a good view of proceedings from the press gallery. Fate smiled on us when we were ushered right to the front, where we could see proceedings and everybody clearly.
The media are accredited to cover cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, and most big media houses have desks at the Supreme Court. It is not like that in Ghana. It is only during high-profile cases that the court tries to get the media accreditation, and indeed, the petition to contest the Dec. 7 elections drew the highest number of media accreditation by the Supreme Court of Ghana.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long consisted of nine members, even though the Constitution is silent on the number. The same can be said of the Ghana Supreme Court, but presidents under the 1992 constitution have made sure the number has always been more than 10.
Usually all nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court sit on cases, and so they sat on two cases on Wednesday. The only time virtually all members of Ghana’s Supreme sat on a case was in 2002 when Tsatsu Tsikata petitioned the court over the illegality of then newly introduced Fast Track High Court. Not all of them sit on cases. Currently nine judges are sitting on the electoral case.
The discussions Wednesday were interesting, and I was so happy to see Sotomayor and other judges of the U.S. Supreme Court under the leadership of John Roberts Jnr., sit on cases for the first time. I learned a lot from the U.S. justice system and the fact that, indeed, the Supreme Court reigns supreme with its super imposing structure and facilities.
I was told you have to be sworn into the Supreme Court bar before you can argue a case before the court. I am not too sure it will ever happen in Ghana, at least not in the nearest future. The only requirement is to be called to the bar in Ghana. The U.S. Supreme Court can afford to go on recess every two weeks, because it hears only about 80 cases a year, but not their colleagues Ghana, who are still far from determining the biggest case in Ghana’s electoral history and perhaps judicial history.

http://shfwire.com/node/7498

A night with U.S. lawmakers and the president

A picture of me inside the press gallery as captured by the Washington Post

In Ghana, it is called the State of the Nation address, but here, it is called the State of the Union address. They mean the same thing, though, and both are enshrined in the countries’ constitutions. One similarity is that each president gives his address before lawmakers.
The State of the Nation address in Ghana, ever since the inception of the 1992 constitution, has always been read in the morning, when workers are busily at work and students are in school. Many Ghanaians, therefore, lose the opportunity to watch the president deliver his State of the Nation address.
In the U.S., the president’s speech to lawmakers is a big deal. There are five different time zones in the U.S., and the president tries to make his speech at a time when as many American as possible can watch or listen to it, usually 9 p.m. Eastern Time. It is a prime-time event with millions across the nation watching.
And so when my colleagues and I got our credentials to cover the event, we were very happy. We were happy because there wasn’t as much pressure on us as reporters as there was during the inauguration. I was personally happy because I was going to cover my first State of the Union and it was going to be President Barack Obama’s first such speech of his second term and the fourth of his presidency.
After we were ushered into the press gallery, I made sure I got a seat where I could see the president and other guests. In Ghana, when the president makes a very remarkable statement, the closest signs of approval he gets are shouts of “Hear, Hear” from the members. In the U.S., members clap and give the president standing ovations.
The stakes were high, and people were expecting Obama to deliver and he did just that. We got the full text of his speech a few minutes before he started. Of course, there was nothing journalists could do because it was embargoed, meaning we could not report on it until he said it. His comments on gun control, which he made toward the end, attracted the loudest cheers, applause and the longest standing ovations. Perhaps he was saving the best for the last.
One thing I noticed was that a lot of the journalists were tweeting almost every statement the president made, so it was no wonder this year’s speech had more than 760,000 tweets.
When it was all over, I was happy and learned a lot of things about American politics. Some of the president’s most avowed critics applauded when they had to. I doubt if this would ever happen in Ghana without the politician being tagged as a traitor by his or her own party members.
When Obama came to Ghana in 2009, a lot of government officials, including cabinet members, were seen taking photographs of him. They were criticized by the media for doing that. On Tuesday many American lawmakers were taking photos of the president with their phones or iPads.
I wondered what the reaction would have been if parliamentarians in Ghana started taking photographs of President John Mahama in the chamber of the house, but American lawmakers did that with ease.

A picture of me just before I entered the chamber

My colleagues and I did not take photographs of the president at the speech because our credentials did not give us permission, and indeed, with rare exception, journalists are not allowed to take photographs in the chamber of the Senate or the House of Representatives.

We took some photos outside the House chamber, and I woke up to see a photograph of me and my colleague Amy Slanchik in the Washington Post (second row on the right) perhaps to tell me, “You don’t worry about taking pictures, we’ll do it for you.”  It was a nice experience that will stay in my mind for a long time. As for that copy of the Washington Post, I will keep it and show it to my great grandchildren.

How SOTUs have evolved into primetime, must-watch events

WASHINGTON - He came, and he spoke to the live audience of mostly American lawmakers who gave him several standing ovations. Millions of people in the U.S. and more across the world watched on TV. It was his fourth State of the Union address.
President Barack Obama’s speech focused on a lot of issues, but those concerning the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, immigration, voting and gun control attracted the some of the loudest applause and standing ovations.
It is constitutionally mandated for the president to report to Congress every year. Article II Section 3 states, “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
These reports were given in writing from the time of Thomas Jefferson until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson gave his report in a speech.
 Calvin Coolidge’s 1923 speech was the first to be broadcast on radio, and Harry Truman’s 1947 address was the first to be broadcast on television.
SOTU addresses have evolved over the years from mere appearances before Congress to appearances on prime-time TV, when citizens have the opportunity to watch and hear the president’s assessment of the nation and his plans for the next 12 months. Most popular prime-time television and radio programs are suspended for the president’s address.
John Woolley, a professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara said in an email interview that SOTU addresses are usually successful. He said they help to put the president's priorities before the public and on congressional agendas. Woolley said, however, that SOTU addresses do not necessarily lead to changes in public opinion.
“There's not much evidence that any kind of big presidential address leads to a lasting change in public opinion. One important reason for that lack of lasting impact is that politics is about competition and confrontation,” he said.
John McConnell, a speechwriter for George W. Bush from 2001 to 2008, said SOTUs are important because they tend to be the largest audience the president has and the most extensive media coverage the president can get to put across his programs.
“It’s a good start to the president’s year because he can define the agenda, going forward on his term and proceed from there,” McConnell said.
Don Baer, a speechwriter for President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1998, said it is very difficult for the president to include a lot of ideas and put them together. “It is very hard. It has to have a lot of thematic coherence,” he said.

There have been many historic moments.
President James Monroe introduced the “Monroe Doctrine,” a policy of defending the Western Hemisphere from European interference, on Dec., 2, 1823, during his seventh SOTU report. Franklin Roosevelt spoke about four freedoms in his SOTU address on Jan., 6, 1941, and spoke of the second Bill of Rights, calling for economic security for all Americans, on Jan., 11, 1944. Bush’s declaration of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil, on Jan., 29, 2002, was a momentous occasion that has become part of SOTU address history. McConnell said it is difficult for people to remember an entire speech.
“People remember moments. If you have some good moments, then you’ve accomplished an important purpose,” he said.
Woolley said Obama’s statements on gun control were the defining moments of his speech.

 “The gun control part of the speech was one of the most emotionally effective parts. And the president's repeated statement that ‘they deserve a vote’ was a line that supporters can echo in coming weeks,” Woolley said. When Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, which gave corporations and unions greater rights to make campaign contributions, cameras caught Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. shaking his head and saying not true, Woolley said.
Woolley said it is not uncommon to see members of the opposition party in in Congress withholding their applause, or pointedly applauding lines that might not have seemed positive to the president and his supporters.

“Alito's head-shaking occurred in a moment when the president himself was unleashing a direct critique of the Supreme Court. That kind of critique has been fairly unusual in the context of SOTUs,” he said.