The Times reports that Justice Sonia Sotomayor has backed away from her pre-confirmation support for televising the court’s oral arguments. In 2009 she said she favored letting the public watch the court at work. Recently she said that most people wouldn’t understand the proceedings and she saw no reason for letting them try. Similarly, the newest justice, Elena Kagan, has gone from believing that televised proceedings would “be a great thing” to having “a few worries,” among them the possibility of grandstanding and misuse of the coverage.
Of course, many viewers would be confounded by the
complexity of the cases before the court. But that in itself would be
instructive. Americans might well withhold a rush to judgment about the court’s
decisions if they had a better grasp of how mindbendingly complex are the
issues the court wrestles with.
It’s safe to say that many people found the president’s
State of the Union address hard to follow, but that was not a valid reason to
bar them from watching it. Cameras are allowed in Congress despite the arcane
nature of a lot of lawmaking. As for grandstanding, the court isn’t powerless
to control the conduct of litigants as well as its own members.
It’s disappointing that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan
have apparently been co-opted by their court colleagues on the issue of
televising oral arguments. A camera at the high court would not corrupt the
course of justice nor influence it. On the contrary, allowing the American
people the opportunity to watch the court at work would enhance the system of
justice by de-mystifying the court and making it less remote.
Who knows, it might even encourage Justice Thomas to emerge from his shell and join in the give-and-take of oral argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment