Stream the Court: Why the Supremes Should Be Televised

by Matt Kelley · 2010-10-06 10:27:00 UTC
Topics:

It's oral argument season again. The U.S. Supreme Court is back in action, and once again I find myself wishing that the justices would join the 21st century and stream some damn video online. The proceedings before our nation's highest court are revered, widely followed and hugely important, and they should be available for us to watch. An online stream would open wider the doors of our democracy and surely fuel wider interest in the American court system.

The justices are hearing oral arguments today in Connick v. Thompson, a case focused on whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for the misconduct of its employees. I'll write more about this case tomorrow (but my comments will be based on a transcript, rather than a video, since I'm not able to attend and video isn't available).

It's on the occasion of a case like this -- with broad interest and importance in the criminal justice community -- that I find myself pining for a video feed from the court. Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court provide a moment of intense intellectual debate on some of the thorniest issues facing our society, and these lofty conversations shouldn't be reserved for an audience of a few hundred insiders and tourists. (Read more after the jump.)

State courts have dealt with these issues for years, and have been more receptive than the federal bench. Anyone who watched the O.J. Simpson case or any other Court TV proceeding knows that cameras have long been in our trial courts. I'd argue that there are fewer issues with televising the Supreme Court than a trial court -- since a trial court hears a personal case and the Supreme Court deals with wider policy and precedent.

And I'm not alone in urging the court to press the record button. The issue has been around for years; C-Span has begged for access since 1988. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector has also long advocated for cameras in the court, though bills urging the change foundered in both the House and Senate this year. At least two Supreme Court justices support cameras in theory (Sotomayor and Alito), while three have vocally opposed it (Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia). Kennedy worried in 2007 that cameras would "destroy a dynamic that is now really quite a splendid one." Matt Sundquist detailed all of this and more in a definitive history of the issue on ScotusBlog in April.

The justices should suck it up and give cameras a try. Our democracy would be stronger for it.

Photo Credit: Kyle Rush

Matt Kelley is the Online Communications Manager at the Innocence Project and a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. Follow him on Twitter @mattjkelley.
PREVIOUS STORY:
With Stroke of a Pen, Schwarzenegger Sentences More Drug Users to Die
NEXT STORY:
Make the Call! Stop the Torture of Special Needs Children in Massachusetts

COMMENTS (1)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.