What's Going On: Supreme Court: keep “insidious” dynamic out of courtroom

 A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court issued two of its most controversial rulings in decades when it affirmed the Affordable Health Care Act and prevented states from banning same-sex marriage. 

These were two monumental cases on topics that have galvanized the nation that were ruled upon less than 48 hours apart.

And yet, despite the impact and significance of these cases, Americans continue to be denied a chance to witness history in the making. 

In a sign of true condescension and arrogance, the Supreme Court continues to refuse cameras in the courtrooms. 

While CSPAN has been televising live from the legislature for nearly 40 years and many other lower courts allow broadcasts of major trials, Supreme Court justices remain aloof regarding whether or not you should get to watch arguments from the most important cases of our time be made. 

Justices cite two major concerns: grandstanding for the cameras and us simple folks taking sound bites from the proceedings and quoting them out of context. 

The grandstanding seems like a potential concern. I have no problem believing there are attorneys who, on the biggest legal stage of the world, would want to drum up some attention/publicity, possibly at the expense of their client’s case. 

But really, if a lawyer is there to get some name recognition and isn’t concerned with what’s best for his client, the absence of cameras isn’t going to prevent that from happening. 

As for the sound bites, that’s just, well, arrogant and condescending. 

Will quotes be taken out of context? You bet. They’ll be plastered all over Facebook, reported on TV/radio stations and in the newspaper, and litter blogs everywhere. 

I say, so what. That already happens all the time whether with comments from public officials or even with excerpts from the Bible. 

Are the words spoken by our Supreme Court justices so hallowed they can’t be taken out of context, or is this such a dangerous trend that maybe CSPAN should stop broadcasting from inside the Capitol and the Bible should no longer be printed?

Of course not, on both cases. 

However, change will not be coming from inside the court. One of the perils of lifetime appointments, as Supreme Court justices have, is they don’t have to care what the public wants. 

Congress though, whose members do have to answer to the public, have tried changing that in the past. In fact, our own Sen. Charles Grassley introduced a bill earlier this year to allow cameras into federal courts in an attempt to provide more public access. 

Due to his seniority on Capitol Hill, Grassley has a lot of influence. But I’m not sure he has the clout to push this through with staunch opposition from the sitting justices. 

In 2008, Justice Anthony Kennedy angrily testified before Congress when a similar bill was being discussed.  

“Please don’t introduce that insidious dynamic into what is now a collegial court,” he said. “Our court works. We teach, by having no cameras, that we are different. We are judged by what we write. We are judged over a much longer term. We are not judged by what we say.”

We are not judged by what we say. Hmm. Maybe you should be. 

Gregory Orear is the General Manager/Editor of the Red Oak Express and Glenwood Opinion-Tribune. He can be contacted at publisher@redoakexpress.com.