Editorials

<< Previous   of   Next >>   ADVERTISEMENT   HAVE YOUR SAY Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor. You’ll need to include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) We reserve the right to edit letters, but if you keep yours to 250 words or less, we won’t ask you to shorten it. If your letter is published, please wait 30 days before submitting another. Send it to: E-mail: letters@heraldnet.com Mail: Letters section The Herald P.O. Box 930 Everett, WA 98206 Fax: 425-339-3458 Have a question about letters? Contact Carol MacPherson (cmacpherson@heraldnet.com or 425-339-3472).   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. READER COMMENTS Be the first to comment. You must be a registered user and verify your e-mail address to post comments to blogs or articles on HeraldNet. To register, click here. To read other terms and conditions, click here. Log out

1. Teen dies after Granite Falls crash 2. Bikini coffee stands to be regulated as adult entertainment 3. Sultan brothers plead guilty in death of rival gang member 4. Body found after house catches fire north of Bothell 5. Gregoire unveils budget with deep cuts, will press for tax hikes 6. Grief and gratitude expressed for four slain officers 7. Two teenagers hurt in crash near Granite Falls 8. Friends and family honor Clearview couple who loved always 9. Roe appointed interim county prosecutor 10. Arlington's budget is ‘bare bones' 2 - Top 10 Stories Most Talked about 3 - Top 10 Stories Most Emailed

• Zambian woman thanks students for their help • Food banks see rise in use • ‘Making Spirits Bright’ in Edmonds • Wolfpack takes aim at state • Seahawks help students smile • 95 and still volunteering • Sno-King joined by local TV king • Veterans back for Wildcats • Lynnwood seeks to plug $2 million budget gap • Snohomish County offers the best and most affordable venues for conferen ... • Boeing will build, flight test and deliver 787s in South Carolina to spe ... • Snohomish County EDC promoting job growth in key industry clusters • $4 million grant to advance brain tumor research has Everett links • Providence medical center construction tops off its 12-story steel frame ... • Tulalip affordable housing project to be financed by KeyBank, Raymond Ja ... • Arlington's Lak of Ink has a growing following for Luke Kooyman's creati ... • Bank of the Northwest formed