That is, of course, unless the newspaper report is incorrect, or unless Ms. Rogers reverses her position pretty quickly.

The Journal Inquirer writes, “Judges argue that they should not answer questions of law that may come before them in particular cases, lest they prejudice such cases, but this is a dishonest dodge.” Personally, after my experiences in Washington, I have a lot of questions that I would like to ask Ms. Rogers and they are not “questions of law that may come before them in particular cases”.

No, what I want to know is how Ms. Rogers, as chief justice in Connecticut would administer the Connecticut courts. What will she do to open up the courts in Connecticut, to make them more transparent, to make the Connecticut judicial system one that is looked up across the country and inspires the citizens of Connecticut to have confidence and respect for their states courts?

And, no, these are not general philosophical questions, they are the basis for very specific questions. What would our new chief justice do to encourage judges to allow cameras in their courts? What would our new chief justice do to encourage the role of new media, such as blogs and citizen journalists? Would there be a WiFi enabled media room open to both traditional and new media journalists in courtrooms, the way there has been in the Federal Courthouse in Washington during the Libby trial? What bold ideas would our chief justice have above and beyond these ideas?

I must admit, I don’t know a lot about our Connecticut judicial system. I know almost nothing about Ms. Rogers. But I do know that my experience blogging the Libby Trial has changed me. It is my hope that this is the beginning of significant changes in the judicial system across our country and the Constitution State demonstrates it leadership in promoting ideas for better government.

I hope the General Assembly, Ms. Rogers, and bloggers across our state work together to bring these ideals about.

(Cross posted at MyLeftNutmeg)

The tune winds its way through my head as I wait. I’ve left my bags at Union Station and will hop on a train back home when the day is done. In the 1992 Vice Presidential debate in Atlanta Georgia, Admiral Stockdale asked the now famous questions, “Who am I? Why am I here?” His line was met with laughter and applause. He may or may not have helped out his case for the election, but he was honest and hopefully got a few people to sit back and think.

He continued on, saying, “I'm not a politician -- everybody knows that. So don't expect me to use the language of the Washington insider.” Well, I’m not a journalist, at least in the traditional sense of the word -- everybody knows that. So, don’t expect me to use the language of the Washington court reporter.

So, why am I here? Well, on the most superficial level, it would have been great to be here for a historic moment, the verdict in the Libby trial. I may, or may not get that opportunity. Yet as Robert Louis Stevenson said, “To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive”. I’ve traveled down here hopefully. We may not arrive at a verdict by the time I leave, but that is okay. I’m coming away with something more important.

During my four days here, I’ve gotten to know some of the reporters on the court beat. As much as some of my blogging friends dislike the traditional media, and there are some very valid issues with how news is gathered and distributed in our country, most of the reporters that I have met are committed to their craft and to “reporting in a way that is worthy of the First Amendment” as I heard a great thinker on journalism once say.

Sure, they are doing it for a living. We all need to make a living. You hear lines like “As long as the check clears, do whatever you want with my story” bantered about but when you sit down and talk with the reporters, you find an idealism that unfortunately doesn’t often make it out into the stories.

Likewise, Judge Walton, and I believe most of the people involved in the judicial process here are people to be deeply respected. As I mentioned in a previous post, his rant to a young black parole violator was priceless and will be one of the moments I will remember most vividly from the whole experience.

What is my take away from the whole event? As much as I’d like to see a verdict, seeing the verdict and whatever that verdict is, are less important. What matters is that we all come away with a better appreciation of the role of the fourth estate and the role of the judicial branch. I know I have and I hope others will as well.

I hope that this little experiment of having a media room in a courthouse with public Wifi, open to bloggers and citizen journalists as well as traditional journalists will become a model for all courthouses in the future. I hope that journalism professors, media educators, and high school civics teachers get opportunities to send students to such media rooms around the country.

Oh, and I do still hope that we get a verdict today.
(Cross posted at Greater Democracy)