May it please the cameras

TELEVISING ORAL arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court is an idea whose time came, oh, about 20 years ago. But, like a surly adolescent, the court stubbornly refuses all entreaties to be more open. And, like a surly adolescent, it can’t be forced to behave -- especially not by Congress. It has to come to its senses all on its own.

Legislation forcing the court to televise its proceedings would pit Congress against the court in a needless constitutional confrontation. A proposal from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) to permit cameras in the courtroom in most cases makes the court’s opposition to them look even more silly -- but it’s still a bad bill. The court’s practices may be archaic and frustrating, but Congress has no right to force it to change.

A majority on the court opposes cameras in the courtroom because, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told a Senate hearing recently, it would “change our collegial dynamic.” But the cameras wouldn’t capture the justices’ internal deliberations, only their public questions to lawyers -- which are already accessible online in transcript form and sometimes via audio recordings.

The real concern may be privacy. The fear is that turning the nine justices into household faces (at least in households that watch C-SPAN) would threaten their security. Some justices worry that if they’re recognized at the supermarket or movie theater, they might become the targets of harassment or worse. But, as Specter points out, a majority of the justices -- including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. -- are well known, if not easily recognizable, and regularly give speeches and appear on television interviews.

Ironically, the only member of the court to meet with violence in recent years was its most reclusive member, Justice David H. Souter, who famously warned that TV cameras would come into the court “over my dead body.” Nearly three years ago, Souter was assaulted while jogging in Washington -- by assailants who didn’t recognize him.

It’s easy to overstate the importance of televising the court, which Specter does when he suggests that it would increase scrutiny of how the justices operate behind the scenes. But precisely because televising arguments would be an incremental change, the court should drop its cranky opposition. Such a change would threaten neither their “collegial dynamic” nor their lives and limbs.