ROBERTS: Just the number of spectators we have in the courtroom, you`re worried about lawyers playing in front of the audience, and, I have to be honest, you`re worried that the judges will do that. And you don`t want that. Supporters of Spectre`s proposal argue that other government proceedings are already televised, including House and Senate sessions, which are most often covered by C-SPAN. [7] Through the court`s television broadcast, they argue that Americans have more access to the most important institution in the United States. The judiciary, which would lead to a more open and transparent government. [2] Bruce Peabody of Fairleigh Dickinson University argues that television coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court trial can change the way Americans view public policy by paying more attention to the court. [8] A 2010 New York Times editorial argued that public access to the courts would give Americans an opportunity to take a closer look at the workings of a powerful branch of government. He added that the Court`s television broadcast would hold the presidents accountable for the judges they appointed. The editorial justification: “At the moment, we see the judges at their confirmation hearings and rarely after.” [9] In 1972, the U.S. Judicial Conference adopted a ban on “broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in and adjacent to the courtroom.” The prohibition, which was contained in the United States Code of Conduct for Judges, applied to criminal and civil cases.
These two photos argue that the judges` fear comes at a price. Their inertia means we don`t have photos or videos of Thurgood Marshall, from Brown v. Board of Education, just as we don`t have photos of Justices Roe v. Wade or Bush v. Gore. The photos remind us that it was a choice – their choice – to let these and countless other moments slip by. Prudence is a virtue – until it becomes paralyzing. If we try to preserve what we have, we lose far too much.
If The Onion can mock Supreme Court cases to get justices to hear the case of an Ohio man jailed for parody, please forgive a TV reporter who writes again about the lack of cameras in federal courts. Eric J. Segall is the Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law at George State University School of Law, where he teaches federal courts and constitutional law. Voters have mixed opinions about the impact of television coverage on court decisions. While 45% say television coverage of court hearings would be good “because judges would take more account of public opinion when making decisions,” 31% say television would be bad because judges pay too much attention to public opinion. 25% say they are unsure or say the court`s television broadcast would have no impact on its legal decisions. [7] While a majority of voters currently rarely, if ever, follow government proceedings (50%) say they would sometimes or regularly watch U.S. Supreme Court proceedings if they were televised. Only 10% say they would never see the place. [7] What are the possible reasons for excluding cameras from Supreme Court proceedings? One concern is that broadcasting pleadings will change the behaviour of lawyers and judges. Perhaps this concern has some basis in trial courts, where there is concern about the effect of cameras on witnesses. But even there, the experience of many jurisdictions with courtroom cameras and numerous studies refute any concerns.2 This did not have to be the case.
At a time when even our cell phones can take pictures discreetly, why have we been forced to look at pixels on our computer screens or a static television image from outside the Supreme Court? Why is there a wall of separation between the American people and their Supreme Court in 2012? Spectators line up outside the Supreme Court, hoping to grab one of the courtroom seats. As of 10:07 a.m. on June 28, 2012, more than 5 million people were glued to SCOTUSblog, a popular legal website, waiting to hear the Supreme Court`s decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. In the courtroom, Chief Justice John Roberts read his opinion on the bench while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy waited to share their views. The press, meanwhile, hastened to deliver the news of a cumbersome process reminiscent of a child`s “phone game”. Opponents of Spectre`s proposal argue that the requirement to broadcast U.S. Supreme Court proceedings is a threat to the independence of the judiciary and thus to the separation of powers. In addition, several justices on the court objected to the proposed legislation, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who argued that the measure would not be consistent with the “etiquette” and “deference” that “should apply between branches.” [12] In addition, some judges believe that television coverage of the trial would change the way they operate in the courtroom.
Justice Clarence Thomas also said that televising court hearings would reduce the level of anonymity judges currently have and could raise security concerns. [2] Opponents also believe that television coverage would also defuse the mystery of the court and lead the public to misinterpret the court and its trials. [2] Given these overwhelming benefits of televised or live broadcasting of proceedings already opened by the Court, the judges have at best advanced flimsy arguments for remaining in the dark.