[US Supreme Court] Should There Be Cameras In The Courtroom?

[Payday]

<Disclaimer: I feel like I have seen something on this before, but I searched and didn't find anything.>

Either way - Now seems like a good time to ask the question: Should there be cameras in the Supreme Court of the United States?

I stumbled upon this article about the justice's activities outside after session which led me to [their actual views of the very idea in their own words].

Of course I went straight for my favorite Justice, The Honorable Antonin Scalia:

"I wouldn't mind having the proceedings of the court, not just audioed, but televised, if I thought it would only go out on a channel that everyone would watch gavel to gavel. But if you send it out on C-SPAN, what will happen is for every one person who sees it on C-SPAN gavel to gavel so they can really understand what the court is about, what the whole process is, 10,000 will see 15-second takeouts on the network news, which, I guarantee you, will be uncharacteristic of what the court does. So I have come to the conclusion that it will misinform the public rather than inform the public to have our proceedings televised."

--

Dear lord I agree with Scalia? I really enjoy listening to the court deliberations on CSPAN and would really enjoy being able to actually watch the drama unfold, but he raises a striking point. I'm not sure if I want to see this beat to death by pundits of either side..

Fun fact: C-SPAN was launched on March 19, 1979, in time for the first televised session made available by the House of Representatives, beginning with a speech by then-Tennessee representative Al Gore

So, what do you think - cameras or no cameras?

[Gemini Sunrise]

So - cameras or no cameras?

Hrmmm... Fairly sure my cable company has a channel for each the house and the senate, that isn't interrupted. If they have something like that, I'd watch it.

[Rocko9]

Dear lord I agree with Scalia? I really enjoy listening to the court deliberations on CSPAN and would really enjoy being able to actually watch the drama unfold, but he raises a striking point. I'm not sure if I want to see this beat to death by pundits of either side..

I agree, my solution would to be make a channel (lets called it C-SPAN SCOTUS) and charge an extra couple of bucks to get it. I definitely wouldn't mind paying $2 for it. But, the tricky part would be the video clips that everyone would steal from it

[Elegiac]

No, one of the few cases where I agree with Scalia as you said. There is no benefit in turning its proceedings into a spectator sport.

[Tradewind]

I think it's a bad idea to be honest. Turning court rooms into televised spectacles. Surely it could be educational and informative, but the same can be done for anyone who is truly interested by just going down to open court sessions and having a seat in the back row.

[Sialanne]

I say no. To me, adding cameras seems to turn some things into a spectacle, and I can't help but feel that this would be one of those things.

[Felya]

I think it should happen, from an accountability perspective. I want to see the debates judges have to come to these conclusions. I don't think cameras in political discourse is a bad thing.

---------- Post added 2013-06-28 at 11:50 PM ----------

Surely it could be educational and informative, but the same can be done for anyone who is truly interested by just going down to open court sessions and having a seat in the back row.

A camera would let people who are not within traveling distance of DC, witness the formation of decision that will have a long lasting impact.