The perennial debate about cameras in the courtroom has come again, this time with Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) The debate is old and contentious; on one side, we have Judge Judy and her ilk with their pseudo-legal television farces, and on the other is the Supreme Court, sitting silently and majestically inside its marble building.
Advocates of televising the oral arguments before the Supreme Court say that it will make the public more aware of what goes on in one of the most powerful institutions in this country. Critics say it will polarize and politicize the Court.
Personally, I'm torn. As a Supreme Court geek who's only had a chance to visit the Court once so far, I would love more chances to see the arguments. However, I also want the oral arguments to retain their value as discussion between the justices and advocates. I'm worried that televising the arguments would turn them into what "debates" in Congress have become: political posturing for the cameras.
So, I propose the following two possibilities for ways to provide more openness and transparency to the Court without politicizing it further. These two options are not, of course, mutually exclusive and some combination could be employed.
Advocates of televising the oral arguments before the Supreme Court say that it will make the public more aware of what goes on in one of the most powerful institutions in this country. Critics say it will polarize and politicize the Court.
Personally, I'm torn. As a Supreme Court geek who's only had a chance to visit the Court once so far, I would love more chances to see the arguments. However, I also want the oral arguments to retain their value as discussion between the justices and advocates. I'm worried that televising the arguments would turn them into what "debates" in Congress have become: political posturing for the cameras.
So, I propose the following two possibilities for ways to provide more openness and transparency to the Court without politicizing it further. These two options are not, of course, mutually exclusive and some combination could be employed.
- Have video of oral arguments available on the Supreme Court or National Archives website in full for individual viewers but not available for secondary publication by broadcasting corporations.
- Release the video of oral argument to broadcasters and others at the start of the following term. Thus, video from OT2009 would be released in October 2010. This would allow dissemination of the video in an informative fashion while removing most of its political value. In our 24 hour news cycle, video that is months old will be hard to make sensational.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I encourage commenters to use their real name, although I do not require it.
Blogger employs an automatic spam filtering algorithm for comments. If a non-spam comment has been filtered out, email source4politics@gmail.com and the issue will be investigated.