Cameras in the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was recently interviewed about, among other things, the prospect of opening the court’s argument sessions to news cameras. Scalia’s opposition to the idea hinges on two complaints, that people would not be interested in a large fraction of the court’s work, and that aspects of the more sensational cases would be taken out of context by the media.

Scalia’s contention that the vast majority of viewers would find most of the Supreme Court’s cases too boring to bother watching says a great deal about what viewers expect from political news, that it should be entertaining as well as informative. When the spectacle is lacking, it doesn’t get much attention. Since many of the Court’s cases address topics that are not exactly considered sensational, such as pensions or railroad taxes, it is possible that only the more glamorous, attention-getting cases would attract viewers. In the case that a case regarding a popular issue does come up, such as abortion or free speech, it would not be too difficult for a news source to cherry pick sound bites that support whatever message they wish to get across.

Scalia’s colleagues have varying opinions on the idea of cameras in their courtroom. Samuel Alito worries that media representation might affect the way justices ask questions and also allow lawyers to address the media for political purposes, while Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be accepting of the idea were it not for objections from some of the other justices. On the other hand the court’s newest member, Elena Kagan, has said several times that she strongly supports the idea and thinks it would be beneficial to both the court and the public.

Departing Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) has been the strongest proponent of legislation regarding courtroom cameras. Specter’s departure most likely means the issue will remain on the back burner, or even vanish completely from the radar; as Kingdon would argue, its policy window has probably closed.