Everett, Wash.
Published: Wednesday, July 1, 2009

MUST-SEE PROCEEDINGS

Shine lights on high court

 When Senate confirmation hearings on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court begin July 13, many court watchers will be anxious to hear whether she favors televising the high court's oral arguments.

We hope she does.

Sotomayor has likely given the question some thought, since she sits on a federal judicial committee that's considering whether judges in lower courts should have the discretion to permit video cameras in the courtroom for some civil, non-jury cases.

Based on comments current Supreme Court justices have made about televising oral arguments on C-SPAN, at least some of them are deeply skeptical. None of their public comments, however, have matched the certitude of Justice David Souter's view. If a TV camera ever were allowed before the Supreme Court, he said, it would have to "roll over my dead body."

Fortunately, now that Justice Souter has retired -- Monday was his final day on the bench -- that scene can remain forever figurative.

Televising the approximately 75, one-hour oral arguments the court hears each year would cast welcome light on perhaps the most important yet least understood branch of the federal government. It could inspire countless future attorneys and judges (Sotomayor has said she was inspired in her youth by episodes of "Perry Mason").

It could also go a long way toward enhancing the public's trust and confidence in the entire judiciary. If it led to greater use of cameras in trial courts -- as long as individual judges retain the authority to shut them off when appropriate -- so much the better.

Some sitting justices worry that introducing TV cameras to their proceedings will change the dynamic of oral arguments, and might upset the court's current collegiality.

To the first concern, we doubt if justices themselves would be tempted to play to the camera, given that they already have a lifetime appointment and therefore no career incentive to do so. And attorneys arguing before the high court understand that they have to persuade the nine justices before them, not TV viewers.

As to collegiality, that gets thrown out the window in sharply-worded dissents, anyway. These are the final arbiters of the U.S. Constitution, after all, not members of the local Rotary.

Besides, our state's Supreme Court conducted its first televised proceeding -- a death penalty case -- back in 1995. TVW's regular court coverage since then hasn't turned our justices into on-air prima donnas.

The nation's judiciary shouldn't be shrouded in mystery. It's time to lift the curtains, and Sotomayor should seize this opportunity to start pulling the cords.
© 2009The Daily Herald Co., Everett, WA