Should the Supreme Court Be Televised?

If you ever have occasion to be inside my head (I'd turn down the opportunity if you're offered, speaking from experience), you'll know that I'm occasionally late to the program.  There are certain pop culture events that I totally miss (I remember how I managed to miss hearing "Umbrella" the summer it basically was being played on rotation on every radio station in America) and there are political issues that I'm wrestling with that the rest of the country is either not caring about or had their opinion on years ago.  Today, I'm going to tackle one of those, since for some reason (perhaps because I've been watching a lot of CSPAN this week) it's been in my head: should the Supreme Court be televised?

In trying to figure out my opinion (I start this article vaguely in favor, but am going to try to rationalize both sides and see where I land), I went out and read some of the research on this particular issue.  From the sounds of it, it had its greatest heyday in early 2009 when Rep. Ted Poe and the late Sen. Arlen Specter (both Republicans at the time...eek) introduced a bill to allow televised oral arguments.

Part of me totally sees their point, and is why I'm leaning in their direction with this particular issue.  I glean a lot of information from having both houses of Congress televised, for example.  Many people don't watch CSPAN (the vast majority of you don't, let's be perfectly honest), but if you want true coverage of the news and our leaders, without some sort of spin from a pundit or news anchor, there really is no beating it.  The 535 men and women who govern our legislative branch regularly speak on every issue under the sun on the floor of Congress, and unlike cable news where they are filtered or assisted or targeted or edited in their answers, CSPAN gives it to us, no hold's barred.  Yes, the speeches are prepared by a staff member and are well-planned, but you regularly see exactly what a politician has to say on an issue, typically in a longer speech than you would get on a debate or in an interview.  Also, thanks to some decorum rules, you won't see them campaigning in a traditional sense on the floor of Congress (particularly since, unless it's a census year, they aren't running in an election against one of their colleagues).  You'll just see what they consider important enough to represent in Congress (sharing with 535 other people doesn't leave you a lot of speaking time), and will be able to glean a plethora of information (not to mention see in live time how they are voting or not voting on an issue).

Yes, some would argue that CSPAN has caused more problems than it has answered, but I wholly disagree.  There is a risk of grandstanding knowing that the public is watching, of course, but we're talking about politicians here-there's a risk of grandstanding if there's a mirror around, much less a camera.  Overall, CSPAN has opened up the public's access to its government and given us even more transparency into our elected officials and the laws they pass every day.  In my opinion, it is a great thing.

So why can't this apply to the Supreme Court?  There are a few arguments against the practice.  One, put forward by Diana Schaub, has stated that this wouldn't really open up the court, since the oral arguments are only a part of the process and the only way to truly become involved in the court would be for the public to understand the legal interpretations.  I fervently disagree with this-while I do believe that it would be improper to see the deliberative "closed door" process and no one wants to see the courts try to pick cases, Schaub's argument that seeing only part of the process wouldn't be beneficial is foolish; wouldn't seeing part of the process be better than none at all?  With the Supreme Court handing down myriad landmark cases each year (just in the past two years we saw major verdicts in regard to the Affordable Care Act, gay marriage, and Voting Rights), it's hard to argue that they impress a major role on the American populace-a bit more transparency seems wholly appropriate for nine people that have such control over our everyday life.

Justice Clarence Thomas has stated that televising the proceedings would take away anonymity of the justices and could raise security concerns.  While I am obviously sensitive to the security concerns of the justices (I think few would argue with giving sitting justices Secret Service protection), I don't believe that televising the events would make for less anonymity for the nine justices.  With the advent of Google and Twitter, most anyone who wants to know what a justice of the Supreme Court looks like knows-these are very public figures who regularly give speeches, interviews, and attend major televised events like the State of the Union.  Adding one more way they can reach the public will not stunt their anonymity, considering they have very little to begin with.

Probably the most important argument against televising the proceedings was put forth by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said that it would change the way the justices would react when televised.  There's some merit to this-unlike politicians, justices are not as prone to grandstanding and are not used to public interaction with their offices, for the simple fact that they enjoy lifetime appointments.  I do have two problems with this argument, though.  The first is that the Supreme Court has gotten considerably more political through the years.  When major 5-4 verdicts are handed down, it is nearly always the same person (Kennedy) casting the deciding vote.  Antonin Scalia's speeches could quite readily be confused with a Republican senator's.  For better or worse (I'd say worse) the hyper-partisan appointment process to Congress has left us in a situation where the Court is basically five Republicans and four Democrats, and not nine non-partisan judges.

The second problem I have with this is that the justices still enjoy lifetime appointments (which I support, for the record).  Televising the events for CSPAN is partially about transparency and partially about letting the public know what their elected officials are up to for the next election.  In the Court, it would totally be about the public gaining knowledge regarding the events of the day.  The justices can speak their true opinions and can choose not to speak if they want to without any fear of reprisal from the ballot box.

So, after going through all of these arguments, I find myself decidedly of the stance that the Supreme Court proceedings should be televised.  What are your thoughts?  Share in the comments!