Time to put cameras in U.S. Supreme Court
As the Supreme Court handed down several landmark decisions at the end of its most recent term, Americans got the news through a modern version of the Pony Express. Cable television networks had interns and staffers, usually dressed in suits and sneakers, gather the printed decisions and sprint the several hundred feet down the steps of the court building to make the handoff to reporters, who then tried to decipher the complicated text in seconds. SCOTUSblog, the go-to website for high court junkies, has a reporter scan the decision and electronically relay the highlights to an editor, who posts it on the blog. There really is a better way, if the justices would allow it. That's live, televised coverage of their oral arguments and reading of their decisions. Nearly all court sessions are open to the public, but only a handful of spectators can attend. There is no live audio or video transmission of open court sessions. Audio recording and transcripts of oral arguments are released after a delay, but there is no video recording.It's time to put cameras in the Supreme Court. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, recently introduced legislation that would require all open court sessions to be televised unless a majority of justices find that cameras would violate the due-process rights of a party or parties in a case. Similar proposals have failed, but they have pushed the court toward more transparency. The court started to release same-day transcripts of oral arguments on its website in 2006. It posted same-day audio recordings of recent Obamacare, DOMA and Prop 8 oral arguments. But cameras? Nope. Justice Elena Kagan is the only vocal proponent on the court for cameras. The court shouldn't need to be prodded into transparency. Justices, let the public see what you're doing.
Tampa murder suspect told police he wanted to stop neo-Nazi roommates from committing acts of domestic terrorism