Apparent Toilet Flush Heard During Supreme Court Teleconference Arguments
It was not exactly the shot heard ’round the world, but it was a very familiar noise in a very unfamiliar setting that made ears sit up and listen before fingers began clicking to send tweets discussing the sound of a toilet being flushed during a Supreme Court session.
To set the stage: So that the business of the Supreme Court can continue amid current health concerns, oral arguments are being conducted via telephone. The calls are livestreamed so that anyone who wishes can listen in.
On Wednesday, listeners were primed and ready to hear the debate in the case of Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants. At issue is whether a federal law prohibiting robocalls to cellphones is in violation of the free speech protection of the First Amendment, according to The Washington Post.
The sessions are prefaced by an admonition from Chief Justice John Roberts to all involved to turn off cell phones.
The rules for these sessions are that lawyers who are calling in to argue a case go one at a time, with each having their phone line unmuted only when they are supposed to speak, according to CNN.
The arguments went on as normal until about 59 minutes into the call, when, as tweeted multiple times, a sound of what appeared to be a toilet flushing was heard.
The incident came as lawyer Roman Martinez, representing the American Association of Political Consultants, responded to a question from Justice Elena Kagan.
LISTEN: Toilet flush during U.S. Supreme Court oral argument (h/t @nicninh) pic.twitter.com/He3QGMzvJI
— Jeremy Art (@cspanJeremy) May 6, 2020
The Post reported that no one on the call mentioned the sound, which does not appear in the official recording or transcript of the arguments.
However, the apparent flush launched an avalanche of tweets, some of which were in good taste:
Years from now, whatever case was being argued in front of the Supreme Court when The Flush occurred will be included in legal textbooks as & known to students as “The Flushing Case.”
— Jonathon Lance (@JonathonLance) May 8, 2020
If that undignified toilet flush kills the possibility of continuing audio broadcast of #SCOTUS oral arguments when this is over, we’ll need an investigation so I know whom to blame for not using their mute button.
— Lindsay Wiley (@ProfLWiley) May 6, 2020
To be clear, the @FCC does not construe the flushing of a toilet immediately after counsel said “what the FCC has said” to reflect a substantive judgment of the Supreme Court, or of any Justice thereof, regarding an agency determination. #SCOTUS https://t.co/cghyBfn7rE
— Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC) May 6, 2020
I’m not sure why this needs to be said, but Flush-Gate is not in any way an indictment of live-streaming #SCOTUS arguments—at least once the Court is sitting again at One First Street. So far as I know, there are no toilets on the bench.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 6, 2020
The Supreme flush heard today is yet another first in the annals of Court history. Yet, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, [Being a] “Justice is my being allowed to do whatever I like. Injustice is whatever prevents my doing so.”https://t.co/pPNhhIL7D0
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 6, 2020
For those interested in a detective story about the noise, The Post reported that “No one has owned up to the flush, if indeed it was a flush.”
“It could have been anyone on the phone call, or someone near the phone of anyone on the call. It might have been a spouse, or perhaps a child. It could have come from inside a bathroom (let’s not go there) or nearby a bathroom. Fortunately, whatever sounds preceded the flush sound were imperceptible,” the outlet added.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
