Should Cameras Be Allowed Into The SCOTUS?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Media, Supreme Court
I think they should. The justices don’t.
“Televising our proceedings would change our collegial dynamic,” Kennedy said, asking the Senate Judiciary Committee not to introduce “the insidious temptation to think that one of my colleagues would be trying to get a sound bite for TV.”Kennedy was making a rare public appearance on Capitol Hill to address the panel’s hearing on judicial security and independence. The senators focused much of their attention on whether to allow television cameras in the courtroom — an idea that Kennedy and some other members of the court have resisted.
Folks, this is inevitable…and who really cares about the collegial dynamic? Does that change anybody’s opinions? My guess is no. So why shouldn’t we televise them?
And actually, not all the justices think it’s a bad idea. Roberts and Alito say they’d consider it. Is it coinicidence that they’re the newest? I think not. Eventually you’ll have a high court full of people who’ve grown up in a TV age. Again, an inevitability.
Arlen Specter is at the center of this push for more openness…
“The reality is, TV is the way people understand what is happening in the world,” said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee’s ranking Republican and a proponent of allowing cameras.“I believe we have a right to see when the court decides all these (important) questions,” said Specter, “including who would be the president, as was the case in 2000.”
So, what do you think? More courtroom drawings or the real thing?
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 15th, 2007 and is filed under Media, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
There is certainly one concern this brings to my mind.
The NZ High Court / Supreme Court system only hears appeals on matters of law rather than on matters of fact. As a result the proceedings tend to be (judging from my one attendance and commentary on many more from a mate who is now in the higher echelons of the legal profession) very dry and tedious affairs.
While that may affect the rating ability of broadcast from SCOTUS, it is not the central point of my concern.
That concern comes from the fact that by the time a case reaches the highest courts (unless it involves a declarative judgement) it has already been well heard and well debated in public. Most people with an interest will have formed fairly strong opinions based on the facts as broadcast and received.
I fail to see that there would be benefit to the population at large to watch and hear very learned counsel and judges (at least I hope that they are…) debating the meaning of the word “is” in the context of sexual peccadillo involving a room without corners…
.. if you follow my drift.
The interpretation of law does not require secrecy. It does require knowledge and abilities that far surpass those of the average man in the street.
The understanding of the consequences of that interpretation is for the people. If the consequences are not right, give rise to a “wrong” outcome, then it is the responsibility of the Law to recognise that and adapt.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I have mixed feelings about TV coverage of the Supreme Court. I understand Kennedy’s concern about sound bites. However, why should that be a problem when none of the Justices will never be running for an office again?
I would definitely oppose just any network to be able to film, because their commentators &/or the attorneys arguing cases would play to the cameras & to voters. Limiting coverage to C-span or PBS, without outside comments, sounds like a good idea. Commercial news outlets can still air their comments on separate programming, as they do now. The Justices would still be meeting in private to deliberate & draft. opinions, away from distractions. And we who wish to can become more knowledgeable about how SCOTUS works.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I like the courtroom cartoons, simply because they are a kitchy part of Americana. Keep ‘em, like how they keep our currency green even though they are easier to counterfiet than multicolored notes.