No

by Michael Cannata

Created on: January 04, 2012

If the question were whether or not the Supreme Court should allow televised oral arguments on all cases that come before it, my answer would be an unequivocal, Yes! Virtually every case that it hears is one of utmost importance to all Americans. Every case should be heard in a forum that is as open and accessible as possible given today’s technology.

The Supreme Court is the highest and most sacred legal authority we have in the nation. If the work of the Supreme Justices is worthy of being broadcast in one instance it is worthy of being available for broadcast in all.

However, if we are being asked whether the hearing on President Obama's Health Care Law is one that warrants a special exception, my opinion would be, No! And my first response would be, why? What is so different that suddenly the American people, if indeed that is who is demanding this exception, feel the need to shine the political spotlight on the courts actions as far as this case?

It’s pretty obvious that the move to make these hearings a televised showcase is driven by the political factions that see the Health Care Law as an assault on the rights of the American people. Not to mention a chance to attack the Office of the President. Basically the Republican party as a whole wants to turn the oral arguments into political theater. They want to ensure that the Justices are scrutinized at a Hollywood level of attention. Once the court allowed such an historic change, the entire routine, method and demeanor would be forever changed.

Making any exception would taint any last vestige the court has at credibility. Historically, the US Supreme Court has never televised its proceedings. It does make audio tapes of oral arguments and of its opinions available to the public. In 2009, Senator Arlen Specter and several co-sponsors filed a bill that would require open sessions of the court to be televised. The bill never was passed; for good reasons.

The American people are conflicted in what they believe. A careful reading of the polls surrounding the question shows that they both understand the benefits and dangers of such a blanket policy. While many believe that having the sessions open would be a good thing, many also understand why it could be a bad thing.  

A lot of people believe that refusing to televise its proceedings is tantamount to “hiding” the procedures from the American people. This is an extremist belief and is not true at all. Others believe that by turning the proceedings into a televised showcase it would only add to the circus-like atmosphere that live TV productions invariably become. And recent history shows that such a fear is not without foundation.

Based on instances where high profile cases have been opened to media broadcast, it is pretty much a given that over-whelming media attention can skew results and influence the performance and presentations of both the prosecution and the defense, as well as influence the jury decisions in such high profile cases.

During the fight to have the ballots counted during the Bush/Gore 2000 elections in Florida, the image of the U.S. Supreme court suffered the sort of damage that brought its most important virtue… that of being free of political influence... into serious question. The partisan battles over justice nominees and their appointments have tainted their reputations and rulings in ways that threaten the very authority of the respect of the court itself. When we see them first as a Republican or Democrat before we see them as a justice, then we have robbed them of the one asset they absolutely require in order to do them job we ask of them. Impartiality.  

The urge to push the arguments into the public light has nothing to do with whether or not the US Supreme Court hearings should be public. It amounts to a partisan political effort to do everything possible to force the US Supreme Court Justices into a position where they will become pawns in the political gamesmanship that the parties have engaged in when it comes to the issue.

Many a politician has fallen victim to the lure of the immediate celebrity of the daily sound bite. They have had their heads turned to where their decisions and actions have been dictated by the polls rather than the people. It is a dangerous assumption to think that the Supreme Court Justices are beyond such influence.

By casting the justices as celebrities rather than counselors, televising the oral arguments could well result in a legal proceeding being transformed into a legal performance. We run the risk of having the Supreme Court justices reduced to a panel of party sponsored celebrities and having their opinions forever relegated to that of party-driven sound bites.

The nation may want to see as deeply into the process as reasonable. But the court would be remiss if they take any action that would change the level of public access at this point. Any court making a spectator sport of a legal decision affecting the lives of so many is a terrifying concept.

Learn more about this author, Michael Cannata.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.