Today its routine for people to live past 70. So these lifetime appointments have grown from between 10-20 years to be between 20-30 years. Clearly not what the founders had in mind. A term limit of about 16, twice that of a president, years would still insure political independence yet assure a resonable rate of the changing of the guard at the court.

Remember when the constitution was written there also wasn’t a term limit on the presidency. Most people elected to the office accepted that two terms was enough for any one man however. It wasn’t till the last century that the rules were changed.

No public figure has the right to say how the 1st amendment can be used, in their opinion. Now, if that justice would like to hear the case in court and give his opinion along with the other justices, maybe things will be different. In any case, this Scalia character needs to be removed from his post.

Somehow, we need to fix this mockery of a judicial system we have and hold these people accountable for what they do. Taking personal property and holding people against their will and later calling it a ‘misunderstanding’ is not acceptable. If anyone else does this, its a crime, even a felony. Why should a guy in a black robe be treated any differently? It’s time we limit their lengh of office to a few years to prevent their continued tyranny from taking place. The great experiment has failed and continues to do so.

The Supreme Court Justices need a limit to their term of office!

Chris- Media was invited to the event by the University. At no point did WCU official ask any photographer to stop. The Student worker for pr stopped shooting after Scalia addressed Mon. This is WCU’s property and not Scalia’s the University is always excited when they can have high profile guest speakers and media coverage since most events of this nature occur across town.

(WCU is small Christian university in a town dominated by the campus of the University of Southern Mississippi)

Matt-The reason Mon had to shoot stills for 30 minutes was to fill a 1:30 VOT slot on the 5,6,10 news that normally would have been video . The station could have easily told administration that they were not going to cover the event which would have in turn hurt the university.

Having five photos in a slide show with an anchor talking is not going to hold the attention of the viewer who is expecting to see video so Mon did his job and shot many frames.

10 minutes rules are normally only for concerts.

The no video issue seems to stem from the speeches that Scalia gives. From a political standpoint I assume he believes that the video would be used against him.

Are you the photographer’s editor, Matt?

It is the photographer’s job, not anyone else’s, to determine what shots she/he would like to obtain. It is the event organizer’s job to provide access and perhaps other arrangements to ensure media can do their jobs, while ensuring the speaker and audience have a successful event. The fact that a few members of the audience maybe had to rubber neck differently now and then to see a VIP, because a photographer was doing her/his job, does not rise to the need for the speaker, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, to lash out verbally from the podium. This less-than-becoming peevishness has become expectable, however, from Justice Scalia.

It’s not clear to me. You were in the audience on Apr. 6, 2009 or you were in the audience 3 years ago?

This article is about what happened yesterday not 3 years ago.

If they wanted to give only ten minutes to photographers, they should have planned that in advance, just like they did by banning video cameras, which screams censorship.

He is a public figure after all, so why shouldn’t we be able to film the speech?

Since they didn’t establish an allotted time before hand, then the photographers are going to continue snapping photos because that is their job.

A man in his position should just deal with it, even if it might be annoying. Especially when he’s praising the Constitution.