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

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>