- The Supreme Court does not allow cameras during oral arguments
- Audio recordings of the arguments are released, but coverage is unwatchable
- The solution proposed is to use real animals with fake paws to make the arguments more compelling
- Raw video footage of the animals impersonating the Supreme Court justices is released
- News networks are invited to use the footage to make Supreme Court arguments more interesting to watch

Cameras aren’t allowed in the Supreme Court, so most coverage of our most important cases looks like garbage.
We fixed that problem with real animals and fake paws. Feel free to take our footage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tug71xZL7yc) and reenact cases on your own.
Tag them with #RealAnimalsFakePaws so we can find them.

Audio from Supreme Court cases available at: 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would:
http://Facebook.com/LastWeekTonight

Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news:
http://Twitter.com/LastWeekTonight

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once:
http://www.hbo.com/lastweektonight

-♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ -♪♪ The Supreme Court.

Their latest term began earlier this month, and it's going to be 1 to watch.

Unfortunately, we won't actually be able to watch any of it because the Supreme Court does not allow cameras during oral arguments.

If I really thought it would educate the American people, I would be all for it.

But what most of the American people would see would be 30-second, 15-second take-outs from our argument, and those take-outs would not be characteristic of what we do.

Television can be very irresponsible, which is why you never want to, for instance, do an interview in front of a blue screen, because someone might then superimpose a creepy orgy behind you, because that's the sort of terrible thing the television can do.

But they do release audio recordings of their arguments, so TV does play 15-second clips of the Supreme Court anyway.

It's just that they have to present it like this.

Suppose a state said, because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we're not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55.

Okay, for a start, that is a terrible rendering of Justice Kagan.

You just made her look like Jonah Hill in a wig.

Because what happens at the Supreme Court is way too important not to pay attention to.

And yet, the ban renders any coverage basically unwatchable.

If someone made you just listen to the audio of that, you would punch them repeatedly in the face.

Because a cat's paws are doing things you wouldn't expect them to do.

And if it works for shitty piano music, it can work for the Supreme Court.

And that is why, this week, we spent an incredible amount of time and an almost immoral amount of resources to produce an entire Supreme Court featuring real animals with fake paws.

1 of the current cases in the court is Holt vs.

It's about whether a prison can require a Muslim inmate to trim his beard for security reasons.

Now you may be thinking, John, I do not want to hear a discussion about that.

Now, let's assume I'm in a religion that requires polygamy.

LAUGHTER I mean, could I say to the prison guard, you know, OK, I won't have 3 wives, just let me have 2 wives.

I mean, you're still violating your religion, it seems to me, if he allows his beard to be clipped to one-one-one inch, isn't he?

Well, it is the state's burden that is explicit in the statute.

You know, the-the only limit to the imposal on the hair on top of your head is it can't extend below the middle of your neck.

The difference between the hair on top of your head and the hair on the front of your head is it's not even rational.

You now want to hear the entire how long oral argument, don't you?

Well, as far as searching a beard is concerned, why can't the prison just give the inmate a comb?

You could develop whatever kind of comb you want.

And if there's anything in there, if there's a SIM card in there or a revolver or anything else you think...

-...can be hidden in a half-inch beard, tiny revolver,

Those dry constitutional arguments are now must-see television.

And that is why tonight, as a public service, we are releasing raw video at this address of close-ups, medium shots, and wide shots from our real animals fake-paw Supreme Court.

And we are inviting all news networks to use this footage to make Supreme Court arguments more compelling to watch.

Chief Justice Roberts, Bescalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, who I will warn you, would not sit still.

We have almost everything you need for full coverage.

You need Samuel Alito having a drink of water, no problem.

You need Roberts yawning, he'll yawn for you.

You need Alito covering his ears with his paws or banging a gavel or humping Eleanor Kagan.

Because the Alito dog was f***ing amazing.

Also, a duck assistant and a court stenographer who's just doing the best she can to Keep up.

The entire toolkit is here for anyone to do with as they please.

And if there are not full reenactments of every major court case of the past 4 years online by next Sunday, you


Speaker 0: -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ -♪♪ The Supreme Court. Their latest term began earlier this month, and it's going to be 1 to watch. Unfortunately, we won't actually be able to watch any of it because the Supreme Court does not allow cameras during oral arguments. And I'll let Justice Scalia explain why.

Speaker 1: If I really thought it would educate the American people, I would be all for it. But what most of the American people would see would be 30-second, 15-second take-outs from our argument, and those take-outs would not be characteristic of what we do.

Speaker 0: You know, he might be right about that. Television can be very irresponsible, which is why you never want to, for instance, do an interview in front of a blue screen, because someone might then superimpose a creepy orgy behind you, because that's the sort of terrible thing the television can do. So the point is... The point is, there aren't any cameras. But they do release audio recordings of their arguments, so TV does play 15-second clips of the Supreme Court anyway.

It's just that they have to present it like this.

Speaker 2: Suppose a state said, because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we're not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

Speaker 0: Okay, for a start, that is a terrible rendering of Justice Kagan. You just made her look like Jonah Hill in a wig. And also, also, it was boring. And that's a problem. Because what happens at the Supreme Court is way too important not to pay attention to.

And yet, the ban renders any coverage basically unwatchable. But I think we may have a solution.

Speaker 3: And it's learning a lesson from this.

Speaker 0: ♪ ♪ Think about it. If someone made you just listen to the audio of that, you would punch them repeatedly in the face. But the visual makes it irresistible. Why? Because a cat's paws are doing things you wouldn't expect them to do.

And if it works for shitty piano music, it can work for the Supreme Court. And that is why, this week, we spent an incredible amount of time and an almost immoral amount of resources to produce an entire Supreme Court featuring real animals with fake paws.

Speaker 4: Settle down. Settle down. Settle down.

Speaker 0: Let me show you this puppy in action. 1 of the current cases in the court is Holt vs. Hobbs. It's about whether a prison can require a Muslim inmate to trim his beard for security reasons. Now you may be thinking, John, I do not want to hear a discussion about that.

Really? Don't you?

Speaker 3: Now, let's assume I'm in a religion that requires polygamy. LAUGHTER I mean, could I say to the prison guard, you know, OK, I won't have 3 wives, just let me have 2 wives. I mean, you're still violating your religion, it seems to me, if he allows his beard to be clipped to one-one-one inch, isn't he? Well, it is the state's burden that is explicit in the statute. You know, the-the only limit to the imposal on the hair on top of your head is it can't extend below the middle of your neck.

The difference between the hair on top of your head and the hair on the front of your head is it's not even rational.

Speaker 0: Be honest. You now want to hear the entire how long oral argument, don't you? No, no. But I will give you just another taste.

Speaker 5: Well, as far as searching a beard is concerned, why can't the prison just give the inmate a comb? You could develop whatever kind of comb you want. Instead, comb your beard. And if there's anything in there, if there's a SIM card in there or a revolver or anything else you think... -...can be hidden in a half-inch beard, tiny revolver,

Speaker 1: it'll fall out.

Speaker 3: -...it'll fall out.

Speaker 0: Those dry constitutional arguments are now must-see television. And that is why tonight, as a public service, we are releasing raw video at this address of close-ups, medium shots, and wide shots from our real animals fake-paw Supreme Court. And we are inviting all news networks to use this footage to make Supreme Court arguments more compelling to watch. We have all 9 justices for you. Chief Justice Roberts, Bescalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, who I will warn you, would not sit still.

And... And we... We have almost everything you need for full coverage. You need Justice Alito taking notes. Done.

Not a problem. You need Ginsburg adjusting her glasses. You got it. You need Samuel Alito having a drink of water, no problem. You need Roberts yawning, he'll yawn for you.

You need Alito covering his ears with his paws or banging a gavel or humping Eleanor Kagan.

Speaker 4: We have all of those things. Why? Because the Alito dog was f***ing amazing. Plus, plus, we

Speaker 0: have 2 lawyers for you to choose from. Also, a duck assistant and a court stenographer who's just doing the best she can to Keep up. The entire toolkit is here for anyone to do with as they please. And if there are not full reenactments of every major court case of the past 4 years online by next Sunday, you

See all LastWeekTonight transcripts on Youtube

Supreme Court Dogs: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)