"There have been no good reasons not to televise the Supreme Court."


In an unsigned editorial, The New York Times notes that in England, "the highest court in the land…has the good sense to see that televising hearings can boost the court's reputation and confidence in the legal system." Unlike over here:

The Supreme Court of the United States, however, still refuses to see these benefits. It does not allow broadcasts of oral arguments out of a misguided worry that cameras would encourage grandstanding by lawyers and might cause the justices to censor their questions.

But the court currently releases transcripts of oral arguments soon after they are finished and audio recordings of arguments the week they occur — all without causing grandstanding or self-censorship. Adding video would further enhance public understanding of the court. made the case for cameras in the Supreme Court back in 2010, though as you'll see in the video below, my colleagues also touched on certain subjects that The New York Times' more sensitive readers might prefer to avoid: