Skip to main content

Justices, let cameras into the court

By Doug Kendall and Tom Donnelly, Special to CNN
March 22, 2013 -- Updated 1241 GMT (2041 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • The Supreme Court will hear two important cases on gay rights next week
  • Doug Kendall, Tom Donnelly: Justices should allow cameras inside the courtroom
  • They say court coverage tends to be focused on sound bites from justices already
  • Kendall, Donnelly: Court has nothing to lose by permitting all Americans to see it in action

Editor's note: Doug Kendall is president and founder of Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm and think tank. Tom Donnelly is counsel and message director at the center.

(CNN) -- With two important cases on gay rights and marriage equality slated for oral arguments in the Supreme Court next week, Americans of all stripes are participating in a national debate over this emotionally charged issue -- on the Internet, on television, in our leading newspapers and around countless dinner tables.

Despite this interest, only a handful of people will get to see these historic arguments -- those who show up to the courtroom next Tuesday and Wednesday. This is the result of the Supreme Court's longstanding policy prohibiting cameras inside the courtroom.

The court's main reason for banning cameras -- as Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy reminded us recently at a congressional hearing -- is there would be an increased risk the justices' questions and comments would be taken out of context and then played (and replayed) on the news or, worse yet, lampooned on "The Colbert Report."

Doug Kendall
Doug Kendall
Tom Donnelly
Tom Donnelly

This would be a completely valid concern if it weren't for the fact that it's happening already. As the justices well know, reporters, columnists, cartoonists and late-night comedians already extract the juiciest sound bites from oral arguments, sometimes taking them out of context and blowing them up into big stories. Indeed, such sound bites often dominate the media's coverage of the Supreme Court.

For evidence of this, look no further than Justice Antonin Scalia's remark from the court's oral argument in the case of Shelby County v. Holder. Scalia suggested the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had survived only because of the self-perpetuating power of "racial entitlements" -- a comment that generated countless news stories, editorials, op-eds and political cartoons, to say nothing of parodies on satirical shows such as "Saturday Night Live" and "The Daily Show."

Or, better yet, consider Justice Clarence Thomas' decision in January to tell a joke during oral argument -- breaking his seven-year streak of silence and, in the process, becoming front-page news. Does anyone, other than the closest court-watcher, even remember the name of that case or the issues it presented?

Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.



Or, take the constant plight of Kennedy, who commentators tend to assume is the decisive vote in each of the court's most important cases. His every question, word, sigh and hiccup becomes a key part of how cases are covered in the media, as everyone scrambles for possible clues for how Kennedy might vote. Needless to say -- and as Kennedy well knows -- such predictions are often inaccurate.

Sometimes, the focus on sound bites is entirely appropriate.

Scalia's characterization of the Voting Rights Act was offensive, and it deserved to be national news. Furthermore, it's important to report potentially revealing comments from the court's swing justice.

But more often than not, the media coverage of the court is already focused on sound bites, which sometimes get taken out of context. Therefore, the Supreme Court might as well open up and let all Americans experience the majesty of its hearings -- an experience that can be captured only by attending an argument in person or by watching an argument unfold live in one's living room or on one's laptop.

As lawyers who have been to dozens of Supreme Court hearings, we can confidently say that there's nothing that the federal government does that's more impressive than the high-quality debates that occur on a daily basis before the Supreme Court.

The American public would be astonished at the skill of the advocates, the force of the questions and the overall level at which legal issues are debated before our high court. If only they could see these arguments in real time, in their entirety.

Since media coverage of the high court already focuses on the trite at the expense of the court's majesty, it makes sense to remove the media filter. Exposing the American public to the fullness of Supreme Court arguments by permitting cameras in the courtroom would be a service rather than hindrance to the judiciary.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Doug Kendall and Tom Donnelly.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
October 30, 2014 -- Updated 1539 GMT (2339 HKT)
Mike Downey says the Giants and the Royals both lived through long title droughts. What teams are waiting for a win?
October 30, 2014 -- Updated 1832 GMT (0232 HKT)
Mel Robbins says if a man wants to talk to a woman on the street, he should follow 3 basic rules.
October 29, 2014 -- Updated 2103 GMT (0503 HKT)
Peter Bergen and David Sterman say more terrorism plots are disrupted by families than by NSA surveillance.
October 29, 2014 -- Updated 2125 GMT (0525 HKT)
Time magazine has clearly kicked up a hornet's nest with its downright insulting cover headlined "Rotten Apples," says Donna Brazile.
October 29, 2014 -- Updated 2055 GMT (0455 HKT)
Leroy Chiao says the failure of the launch is painful but won't stop the trend toward commercializing space.
October 29, 2014 -- Updated 1145 GMT (1945 HKT)
Timothy Stanley: Though Jeb Bush has something to offer, another Bush-Clinton race would be a step backward.
October 28, 2014 -- Updated 1237 GMT (2037 HKT)
Errol Louis says forced to choose between narrow political advantage and the public good, the governors showed they are willing to take the easy way out over Ebola.
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 1803 GMT (0203 HKT)
Eric Liu says with our family and friends and neighbors, each one of us must decide what kind of civilization we expect in the United States. It's our responsibility to set tone and standards, with our laws and norms
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 1145 GMT (1945 HKT)
Sally Kohn says the UNC report highlights how some colleges exploit student athletes while offering little in return
October 26, 2014 -- Updated 1904 GMT (0304 HKT)
Terrorists don't represent Islam, but Muslims must step up efforts to counter some of the bigotry within the world of Islam, says Fareed Zakaria
October 24, 2014 -- Updated 1302 GMT (2102 HKT)
Scott Yates says extending Daylight Saving Time could save energy, reduce heart attacks and get you more sleep
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 0032 GMT (0832 HKT)
Reza Aslan says the interplay between beliefs and actions is a lot more complicated than critics of Islam portray
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 1119 GMT (1919 HKT)
Julian Zelizer says control of the Senate will be decided by a few close contests
October 24, 2014 -- Updated 1212 GMT (2012 HKT)
The response of some U.S. institutions that should know better to Ebola has been anything but inspiring, writes Idris Ayodeji Bello.
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 1312 GMT (2112 HKT)
Sigrid Fry-Revere says the National Organ Transplant Act has caused more Americans to die waiting for an organ than died in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq
ADVERTISEMENT