Cameras in the High Court
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Few who followed the confirmation hearings of Samuel A. Alito Jr. could believe that the presence of TV cameras encouraged serious discussion between the nominee and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about the great constitutional and legal issues of our day.
Nevertheless, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) wants to mandate TV coverage of Supreme Court proceedings ["Hidden Justice(s)," op-ed, April 25]. He says the court has "expanded its super-legislature status" and disrespected Congress. But TV cameras would only make things worse by encouraging participants in court proceedings to act as though public opinion should matter to them.
We expect senators to take account of public response after a floor debate in which they speak (through C-SPAN) more to their constituents than to their colleagues. The Supreme Court's job, however, is not to reflect public opinion but to grapple with complex legal questions, which sometimes even lawyers don't understand until they have read much more material than accompanies a typical television news story.
CURTIS E. GANNON
Arlington
·
Televising Supreme Court proceedings would be a good idea,
except for one factor: human vanity. When I watch the members of the House and Senate on C-SPAN, I note the fulsome tones, the exaggerated gestures, the deferential bows to supporters and the dismissive gestures toward those who disagree.
To avoid these theatrics at the Supreme Court, I suggest a compromise: Broadcast court proceedings on radio. This would force the justices, attorneys and witnesses to concentrate on the spoken word. Further, camera operators would not be tempted to zoom in on an attorney or a witness snoozing in the back row. There's enough of that in the House and Senate broadcasts.
KENNETH J. RUMMENIE
East Aurora, N.Y.
·
I agree with Sen. Arlen Specter that the proceedings of the Supreme Court should be televised. Issues of great moment are brought to the court for resolution. Its decisions affect the lives and fortunes of the American people, who are therefore entitled to know, firsthand, how the justices decide those issues.
The need for the court to be subject to transparency and accountability is compelling because the justices are merely nominated by the president with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, unlike members of the Congress, who are elected by the people.
MARIANO PATALINJUG
New York
