affect so much of
American life and
we need to know
the real story.
Nathaniel L. Black
Sterling Heights, MI
We are, supposedly,
a nation based on
freedom. So how
can we be fully free
if we harbor secretive proceedings?
THE SUPREME COURT case about the Affordable Care Act has
reignited a long-standing debate about whether television cameras should be present in the country’s highest court of the land.
Supporters say that since the Supreme Court decides matters
of significant public interest, its processes should be widely accessible to the public. In addition to making it easier for the public to
follow and understand cases, video coverage of oral arguments
would make the justices more accountable.
Opponents point out that Supreme Court transcripts and audio
recordings are already public. They argue that televising the oral
arguments would only tempt attorneys to play to the cameras,
make the justices self-conscious and allow video clips to be taken
out of context, possibly misleading the public. What do you think?
Jose Oscar DeSouza
on TV has [a] slightly
on people. It’s our
system making really impor-
tant and serious decisions.
They should be left alone.
I would not want
the court influenced
or distracted by
Find out more about this topic on the Web:
• www.federalevidence.com (Search: Cameras and
electronic devices in the federal courtroom)
• www.michiganlawreview.org (Search: Constitutional
etiquette and the fate of Supreme Court TV)
• www.nationaljournal.com (Search: Senate panel backs
televising Supreme Court proceedings)
only add sensation-
alism to our most
important arm of