Readers React: Why cameras and the courts don’t always mix
To the editor: Everyone is into reality TV, but oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court will not satisfy the prurient observers. (“End the cameraphobia in the Supreme Court,” Editorial, Feb. 4)
Arguments are dense, with legal questions and answers that will be understood by few, because this is not a trial.
Every breath and facial expression of the justices will be parsed and misunderstood, because people don’t know what the purpose (yes, and sometimes theater) of the justices’ questions and pontifications are about.
To insert cameras will do nothing to advance the public’s understanding, will have a chilling affect on both the lawyers and the justices and might even endanger the lives of the justices.
It’s not a good idea at all to have cameras in the Supreme Court.
Stephany Yablow, North Hollywood
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
