Rupert Cornwell: Supreme Court justices shy away from the cameras

Out of America: When they debate Obama's healthcare reforms, they'd prefer to do it away from the glare of TV

Share
Related Topics

Believe it or not, some public figures in Washington actually don't want to appear on television. These rare creatures are the justices of the US Supreme Court, who insist on wielding their power amid an Olympian secrecy that befits such gods of the legal world. But now the vulgar masses are clamouring as never before to be allowed entry to at least a wing of the temple.

The fuss started last month, when the court announced that it would take up legal challenges to President Obama's healthcare reform, the greatest and most controversial domestic achievement of his first term. It has scheduled a virtually unprecedented five and a half hours of oral arguments, at which attorneys for both sides will plead their case in person before the nine justices. The hearing has been set for next March, so that a ruling, which will probably make or break the entire law, will come well before the 2012 election. It is, obviously, one of the most important Supreme Court cases in decades and, not surprisingly, the media and some members of Congress from both parties want the arguments to be carried live on television.

You'd have thought it was a sure thing. The issue, after all, affects every American, and televised court proceedings are nothing new. Hearings of Britain's Supreme Court, which started up in 2009, are televised. So are those of Canada's Supreme Court. And, even more to the point, so are many criminal trials in most US states. Yes, on occasion the majesty of the law has been tarnished, as anyone who followed the nine-month OJ Simpson carnival can attest. But the system has survived, and the fact is that most trials – even celebrity trials – are rather ponderous affairs.

And if the country's highest court goes on TV, even that novelty will quickly wear off. For one thing, the cameras would cover only a small part of the court's activity. The really important work, such as the selection of the 100 cases that will be considered each year out of the 10,000 or so submitted, and the discussions that produce final rulings, will remain unseen. Nor are oral arguments exactly rip-roaring entertainment. They are held three days a week, every other week, during the court term that runs from early October until the following June or July. Normally each case is allotted one hour, during which the justices question attorneys for each side. The points are mostly technical, and the atmosphere rather like an Oxbridge tutorial, punctuated by the odd donnish joke, or more rarely reprimand, from the bench. Woe betide the lawyer who starts to showboat.

One argument for televising proceedings is that so vital a part of the US constitution should be open to public scrutiny, and not restricted merely to the lucky few who secure one of the 200-odd seats available. Another is that the quality of oral arguments is top notch. These are not the bear-pit shouting matches that pass as discussion on cable TV, but highly informed debates between some of the sharpest minds in the land, on a highly important matter. As a final safeguard, oral arguments would be carried on C-Span, the dry-as-dust and pundit-free channel that covers Congress. Clearly, the risk of demeaning, OJ-style histrionics is minimal.

So why does the court continue to resist the idea? One fear is that it would be unduly "politicised" – that, say, Republican-leaning Fox News would use selective extracts to go after justices perceived as liberal. But the reality, confirmed by the shamelessly partisan Bush vs Gore ruling that settled the 2000 presidential election, is that it has long been politicised, between a liberal minority and a broadly conservative majority. Another is that the court would lose its mystique, much as Walter Bagehot in 19th-century Britain feared the monarchy would be doomed if the public were permitted to learn too much about it. Bagehot, however, was wrong. And outside the court, the justices are no shrinking violets. They make speeches, write books and are prized catches on the Washington cocktail circuit.

The real reason, one suspects, is the great men's dread of the common soundbite. C-Span might play by the rules, but what's to stop a clip taking a justice's learned musings out of context or, perish the thought, even showing him dozing off, doing the rounds on YouTube? The answer, of course, is nothing. But like the British monarchy – which has suffered far worse indignities – the Supreme Court would survive and surely thrive.

Indeed, Iowa's high court has been putting its oral arguments live online since 2006 without the slightest problem, that state's chief justice told the Senate last week. Elena Kagan, the newest minted Supreme Court Justice, said at her confirmation hearings in 2010 that it would be "terrific" to get cameras in, "a great thing for the institution, and, more important, for the American people".

But the odds are that the discretion of the past will again prevail. Ms Kagan is in a minority among her peers, and in the unlikely event that a bill were passed by Congress, the court itself might strike the measure down. After all, the Supreme Court's most basic task is to make sure the US constitution is observed. And as one justice has publicly argued, in a system founded on the separation of powers between the legislative branch (Congress) and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court), the former has no constitutional right to tell the latter how to run its business.

The best to expect is a gesture from the court itself: maybe a live audio feed for the healthcare arguments; maybe, just this once, a closed circuit TV feed into overflow rooms, as happens in an ordinary trial where national news interest far outstrips the number of seats in the courtroom press gallery. But the Supreme Court regularly on national TV? Never.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Business Development Manager / Sales - OTE £45,000

£35000 - £45000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This company is a solutions / s...

Recruitment Genius: Sales Executive - OTE £45,000

£18000 - £45000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A Sales Executive is required t...

Recruitment Genius: Test Development Engineer

£35000 - £40000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Are you inspired to bring new a...

Recruitment Genius: Trainee Motor Engineer

£14000 - £18000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an exciting opportunity...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Kennedy campaign for the Lib Dems earlier this year in Bearsden  

Charles Kennedy: A brilliant man whose talents were badly needed

Baroness Williams
Nick Clegg (R) Liberal Democrat Leader and former leader Charles Kennedy MP, joined the general election campaign trail on April 8, 2010  

Charles Kennedy: The only mainstream political leader who spoke sense

Tim Farron
Sepp Blatter resignation: The beginning of Fifa's long road to reform?

Does Blatter's departure mean Fifa will automatically clean up its act?

Don't bet on it, says Tom Peck
Charles Kennedy: The baby of the House who grew into a Lib Dem giant

The baby of the House who grew into a Lib Dem giant

Charles Kennedy was consistently a man of the centre-left, dedicated to social justice, but was also a champion of liberty and an opponent of the nanny-state, says Baroness Williams
Syria civil war: The harrowing testament of a five-year-old victim of this endless conflict

The harrowing testament of a five-year-old victim of Syria's endless civil war

Sahar Qanbar lost her mother and brother as civilians and government soldiers fought side by side after being surrounded by brutal Islamist fighters. Robert Fisk visited her
The future of songwriting: How streaming is changing everything we know about making music

The future of songwriting

How streaming is changing everything we know about making music
William Shemin and Henry Johnson: Jewish and black soldiers receive World War I Medal of Honor amid claims of discrimination

Recognition at long last

Jewish and black soldiers who fought in WWI finally receive medals after claims of discrimination
Beating obesity: The new pacemaker which helps over-eaters

Beating obesity

The new pacemaker which helps over-eaters
9 best women's festival waterproofs

Ready for rain: 9 best women's festival waterproofs

These are the macs to keep your denim dry and your hair frizz-free(ish)
Cycling World Hour Record: Nervous Sir Bradley Wiggins ready for pain as he prepares to go distance

Wiggins worried

Nervous Sir Bradley ready for pain as he prepares to attempt cycling's World Hour Record
Liverpool close in on Milner signing

Liverpool close in on Milner signing

Reds baulk at Christian Benteke £32.5m release clause
On your feet! Spending at least two hours a day standing reduces the risk of heart attacks, cancer and diabetes, according to new research

On your feet!

Spending half the day standing 'reduces risk of heart attacks and cancer'
With scores of surgeries closing, what hope is there for the David Cameron's promise of 5,000 more GPs and a 24/7 NHS?

The big NHS question

Why are there so few new GPs when so many want to study medicine?
Big knickers are back: Thongs ain't what they used to be

Thongs ain't what they used to be

Big knickers are back
Thurston Moore interview

Thurston Moore interview

On living in London, Sonic Youth and musical memoirs
In full bloom

In full bloom

Floral print womenswear
From leading man to Elephant Man, Bradley Cooper is terrific

From leading man to Elephant Man

Bradley Cooper is terrific