Supreme Court of the United States, televised
Encyclopedia
Supreme Court of the United States, televised, refers to the debate over televising proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court has never allowed cameras in its courtroom, but it does make audiotapes of oral arguments and opinions available to the public. In November 2009, Senator Arlen Specter
, D-PA and seven co-sponsors introduced a bill that would require open sessions of the Court to be televised. Ted Poe
, R-TX2, introduced a related bill in the House of Representatives in January 2009. The only exception to televising the Court under this legislation would be if a majority of justices decided that "allowing such coverage in a particular case would violate the due process
rights of any of the parties involved."
Supporters of Specter's proposal reason that other government proceedings are already televised, including sessions of both the House of Representative and the Senate, covered most frequently by C-SPAN
. By televising the Court, they argue that Americans would have more access to the most important institution in the U.S. judiciary, which would result in a more open and transparent government. Bruce Peabody of Fairleigh Dickinson University contends that televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings can change the way Americans view public policy by bringing greater attention to the Court. A 2010 New York Times editorial states that public access to the court would give Americans the opportunity to get a closer look at how a powerful branch of government operates. It adds that the televising the Court would hold presidents accountable for the justices they nominate. The editorial reasons, "[r]ight now, we see the justices during their confirmation hearings and rarely after that."
During her confirmation hearing in 2009, Justice Sonia Sotomayor
indicated that she is open to the idea of televising court proceedings, stating, "I have had positive experiences with cameras. When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered."
U.S. Senators who co-sponsored Spector's bill, and who are therefore on record as favoring the televising of Supreme Court proceedings include:
who argues that the measure would not align with the "etiquette" and "deference" that should "apply between branches." Furthermore, some justices believe televising the proceedings would change the way they act in the courtroom. Justice Clarence Thomas
also contends that televising Court proceedings would reduce the level of anonymity that justices now have and could raise security concerns. Opponents also believe that television coverage would also take away from the mystery of the court and cause the public to misinterpret the Court and its processes.
Scholars have also considered the constitutionality of televising the Supreme Court.
's PublicMind Poll found in a national poll that more than 60% of voters think that televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings would be "good for democracy." 26% think that televising the proceedings would "undermine the authority of the court."
Voters have mixed opinions on the effect of television coverage on court decisions. While 45% say that televising Court's proceedings would be good "because the judges would consider public opinion more" in making decisions, 31% say TV would be bad because justices would consider public opinion too much. 25% say are not sure or say that televising the Court would have no effect on its legal decisions. While a majority of voters presently watch government proceedings infrequently if at all, half of voters (50%) say they would watch the Supreme Court of the United States' proceedings sometimes or regularly if they were televised. Only 10% say they’d never watch the court.
Peter Woolley, director of the FDU poll, said, “Voters are certainly curious about the court, which is both powerful and largely out of the public eye. After the novelty wears off, the primary audience might be lawyers and lobbyists, rather than any broad swath of voters. Most voters will only see it when commercial media select the most controversial bits and pieces.” But Peabody disagreed, “The rationale for televising the court is not to guarantee the public will watch it, but to give democracy’s citizens more opportunities to educate themselves. It is unlikely people will know more about the court by seeing it less.”
Noting the FDU poll, the editors of The New York Times subsequently opined that televising the Court "would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works" and "allow voters to hold presidents accountable for the quality of justices they nominate. In turn, Diana Schaub of Loyola University criticized the Times for insisting that the justices of the Supreme Court ought to be “YouTubed” like everyone else. She contends that the Court is already an open book, the most transparent branch of government. Rather than issuing only a verdict, Schaub states, the Court justifies its rulings with detailed opinions that are immediately available to the public. She further notes that only a small slice of the Court’s work would be revealed on camera if televising oral arguments were required, adding that the “un-telegenic activities” of the Court, which include choosing cases, poring over briefs, writing memos and drafts, and actually deciding cases would not be seen. Furthermore, Schaub declares that the only way for the public to truly have access to the Court is to “join the justices in the difficult work of legal interpretation.” She states that most Americans would not be willing or even capable of doing this.
Arlen Specter
Arlen Specter is a former United States Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter is a Democrat, but was a Republican from 1965 until switching to the Democratic Party in 2009...
, D-PA and seven co-sponsors introduced a bill that would require open sessions of the Court to be televised. Ted Poe
Ted Poe
Lloyd "Ted" Poe is a Republican politician currently representing Texas's 2nd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives. The district includes most of northern Houston, as well as most of the Beaumont-Port Arthur metropolitan area. He is the first Republican to ever...
, R-TX2, introduced a related bill in the House of Representatives in January 2009. The only exception to televising the Court under this legislation would be if a majority of justices decided that "allowing such coverage in a particular case would violate the due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
rights of any of the parties involved."
Support
Upon introducing his bill to require televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings, Arlen Specter announced, "[t]he Supreme Court makes pronouncements on constitutional and federal law that have direct impacts on the rights of Americans. Those rights would be substantially enhanced by televising the oral arguments of the Court so that the public can see and hear the issues presented."Supporters of Specter's proposal reason that other government proceedings are already televised, including sessions of both the House of Representative and the Senate, covered most frequently by C-SPAN
C-SPAN
C-SPAN , an acronym for Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, is an American cable television network that offers coverage of federal government proceedings and other public affairs programming via its three television channels , one radio station and a group of websites that provide streaming...
. By televising the Court, they argue that Americans would have more access to the most important institution in the U.S. judiciary, which would result in a more open and transparent government. Bruce Peabody of Fairleigh Dickinson University contends that televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings can change the way Americans view public policy by bringing greater attention to the Court. A 2010 New York Times editorial states that public access to the court would give Americans the opportunity to get a closer look at how a powerful branch of government operates. It adds that the televising the Court would hold presidents accountable for the justices they nominate. The editorial reasons, "[r]ight now, we see the justices during their confirmation hearings and rarely after that."
During her confirmation hearing in 2009, Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Maria Sotomayor is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving since August 2009. Sotomayor is the Court's 111th justice, its first Hispanic justice, and its third female justice....
indicated that she is open to the idea of televising court proceedings, stating, "I have had positive experiences with cameras. When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered."
U.S. Senators who co-sponsored Spector's bill, and who are therefore on record as favoring the televising of Supreme Court proceedings include:
- Sen. Arlen SpecterArlen SpecterArlen Specter is a former United States Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter is a Democrat, but was a Republican from 1965 until switching to the Democratic Party in 2009...
, D-PA - Sen. John CornynJohn CornynJohn Cornyn, III is the junior United States Senator for Texas, serving since 2003. He is a member of the Republican Party. He was elected Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 111th U.S. Congress....
, R-TX - Sen. Russell Feingold, D-WI
- Sen. Ted KaufmanTed KaufmanEdward E. "Ted" Kaufman is an American politician who served as a United States Senator from Delaware from 2009 to 2010. Since 2010, he has chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel in the United States federal government; he is the second person to hold that post, succeeding inaugural holder...
, D-DE - Sen. Charles SchumerCharles SchumerCharles Ellis "Chuck" Schumer is the senior United States Senator from New York and a member of the Democratic Party. First elected in 1998, he defeated three-term Republican incumbent Al D'Amato by a margin of 55%–44%. He was easily re-elected in 2004 by a margin of 71%–24% and in 2010 by a...
, D-NY - Sen. Richard Durbin, D-IL
- Sen. Kirsten GillibrandKirsten GillibrandKirsten Elizabeth Rutnik Gillibrand is an attorney and the junior United States Senator from the state of New York and a member of the Democratic Party...
, D-NY - Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharAmy Jean Klobuchar is the senior United States Senator from Minnesota. She is a member of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, an affiliate of the Democratic Party...
, D-MN - Sen. Sheldon WhitehouseSheldon WhitehouseSheldon Whitehouse is the junior U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, serving since 2007. He is a member of the Democratic Party...
, D-RI
Opposition
Opponents of Specter's proposal believe that requiring the proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States to be televised is a threat to judicial independence and, thus, the separation of powers. In addition, several justices of the Court have objected to the proposed legislation, including Justice Anthony KennedyAnthony Kennedy
Anthony McLeod Kennedy is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the swing vote on many of the Court's politically charged 5–4 decisions...
who argues that the measure would not align with the "etiquette" and "deference" that should "apply between branches." Furthermore, some justices believe televising the proceedings would change the way they act in the courtroom. Justice Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
also contends that televising Court proceedings would reduce the level of anonymity that justices now have and could raise security concerns. Opponents also believe that television coverage would also take away from the mystery of the court and cause the public to misinterpret the Court and its processes.
Scholars have also considered the constitutionality of televising the Supreme Court.
Public opinion
In March 2010, Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityFairleigh Dickinson University
Fairleigh Dickinson University is a private university founded as a junior college in 1942. It now has several campuses located in New Jersey, Canada, and the United Kingdom.-Description:...
's PublicMind Poll found in a national poll that more than 60% of voters think that televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings would be "good for democracy." 26% think that televising the proceedings would "undermine the authority of the court."
Voters have mixed opinions on the effect of television coverage on court decisions. While 45% say that televising Court's proceedings would be good "because the judges would consider public opinion more" in making decisions, 31% say TV would be bad because justices would consider public opinion too much. 25% say are not sure or say that televising the Court would have no effect on its legal decisions. While a majority of voters presently watch government proceedings infrequently if at all, half of voters (50%) say they would watch the Supreme Court of the United States' proceedings sometimes or regularly if they were televised. Only 10% say they’d never watch the court.
Peter Woolley, director of the FDU poll, said, “Voters are certainly curious about the court, which is both powerful and largely out of the public eye. After the novelty wears off, the primary audience might be lawyers and lobbyists, rather than any broad swath of voters. Most voters will only see it when commercial media select the most controversial bits and pieces.” But Peabody disagreed, “The rationale for televising the court is not to guarantee the public will watch it, but to give democracy’s citizens more opportunities to educate themselves. It is unlikely people will know more about the court by seeing it less.”
Noting the FDU poll, the editors of The New York Times subsequently opined that televising the Court "would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works" and "allow voters to hold presidents accountable for the quality of justices they nominate. In turn, Diana Schaub of Loyola University criticized the Times for insisting that the justices of the Supreme Court ought to be “YouTubed” like everyone else. She contends that the Court is already an open book, the most transparent branch of government. Rather than issuing only a verdict, Schaub states, the Court justifies its rulings with detailed opinions that are immediately available to the public. She further notes that only a small slice of the Court’s work would be revealed on camera if televising oral arguments were required, adding that the “un-telegenic activities” of the Court, which include choosing cases, poring over briefs, writing memos and drafts, and actually deciding cases would not be seen. Furthermore, Schaub declares that the only way for the public to truly have access to the Court is to “join the justices in the difficult work of legal interpretation.” She states that most Americans would not be willing or even capable of doing this.
External links
- Televising Supreme Court and Other Federal Court Proceedings: Legislation and Issues Congressional Research Service of the Library of CongressLibrary of CongressThe Library of Congress is the research library of the United States Congress, de facto national library of the United States, and the oldest federal cultural institution in the United States. Located in three buildings in Washington, D.C., it is the largest library in the world by shelf space and...
report (November 8, 2006) - "Cameras in the Court on the C-SPANC-SPANC-SPAN , an acronym for Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, is an American cable television network that offers coverage of federal government proceedings and other public affairs programming via its three television channels , one radio station and a group of websites that provide streaming...
website - "Public Says Televising Court Is Good for Democracy" Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityFairleigh Dickinson UniversityFairleigh Dickinson University is a private university founded as a junior college in 1942. It now has several campuses located in New Jersey, Canada, and the United Kingdom.-Description:...
PublicMind Poll (March 9, 2010)