Let public see court in action

Published: March 13, 2010

Article Tools
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
Sign Up newsletter

Supreme Court justices, indeed all judges, are supposed to consider the law rather than public opinion in rendering decisions. Yet the high court justices should pay attention to a new opinion poll that is not about their decisions in any particular case, but about the public's ability to observe the court.

The poll is by PublicMind, a research project of Fairleigh Dickinson University's department of social sciences and history. It found that significant majorities of voting-age Americans not only want the Supreme Court to televise its proceedings, but don't buy the justices' reasons for not doing so.

More than 60 percent of respondents said that televising high court proceedings would be "good for democracy."

So it would. Supreme Court decisions affect Americans to at least the same degree as decisions by the other two branches of government. Televising the arguments would add to public awareness of the important issues before the court, increase understanding of the Constitution and provide insights into the workings of the court.

The poll majority favoring televised proceedings included majorities among liberals and conservatives, and across the spectrum of age groups. A majority of respondents also said they would not regularly watch televised court proceedings, but that is hardly surprising. Individuals would watch when the court considers something of particular interest to them.

Some justices argue that cameras somehow would diminish "the dignity of the court." But the only people on camera would be professionals - the lawyers making arguments and the judges hearing those arguments and questioning the lawyers. And the justices would be no less in control of the proceedings than they are now.

Justices also have raised the serious concern that televised proceedings could expose them to greater security threats. But lawmakers are on TV all the time. They also face security risks. Greater public access to the workings of the government is a substantial reward for the risk.

The positive aspects of televised court proceedings heavily outweigh the negative potential, and the public knows it. It's time for the justices to recognize it and open hearings to the people of the United States.

Ads by Yahoo!






Type in the characters you see in the picture below. If you have trouble reading the characters in the picture, click it to see a new one.



6 posted comments

JoeyB.D., You can go in any time you want. It's seldom closed to the public. You would be bored to death, and please don't take up one of my cable stations for a feed from a Bradford County courtroom. It would be more exciting to watch paint dry.
Report
ennui,  03/15/10 3:16
we need to put a camera in the court room of jeff smith to know the truth
Report
jorybaggadonuts,  03/14/10 8:59
This is the most ridiculous idea ever! The nation has survived over 200 years without camaras in the courtroom. It can survive, and even better thrive, without them there in the future. The Courts' proceedings are almost all open. Anyone can attend. How many court proceedings has this paper had a reporter attend in the last 10 years?
Report
Watson,  03/14/10 3:35
most of the police cars and school buses have them so why not the court rooms it is only fair
Report
gary brennan,  03/14/10 11:39
The supreme court has become the most powerful branch of government, something I don't think the founders ever intended. If they don't want cameras, they won't allow it. Their recent decision allowing unlimited corporate contributions to politicians is very scary, but given Chief Justice Roberts background in corporate law, is not unexpected. If Obama serves a second term, he may be able to get the court back toward center, or if we're lucky, to the left. Any farther to the right and we're in deep trouble.
Report
vote smart,  03/13/10 3:19
Soon after the televised trials there will be awards given to the best actors (hollywood style). Activist judges have already vividly demonstrated, by omission or comission, how they can effectively, in written form for all to see, how they can relocate their posteriors to the top of their shoulders. We don't need to watch the process!
Report
Stu,  03/13/10 6:00