New York Times Editorial: Your Court in Action

New York Times Editorial: Your Court in Action
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: October 20, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/21thu3.html?th&emc=th


“Let me correct some things that Mr. Frederick said that were not true.” That was as close as a Supreme Court lawyer comes to calling her adversary a liar. The speaker was Kathleen Sullivan, a formidable advocate and former dean of Stanford Law School, challenging David Frederick, just as impressive and well credentialed, at the court last week.

If you were lucky, you attended the feisty argument. Otherwise, you had to wait until Friday when the audio recording was released. The Supreme Court leapt forward this term by deciding to release recordings at the end of each argument week — rather than waiting until the next year’s term. Americans would be even better served if they could listen the same day, while arguments and coverage are fresh. The court has occasionally done so, and we can’t explain why it can’t happen every time.

The justices are even more resistant to televising arguments. Some have warned that lawyers would ham it up for the camera and justices would feel less comfortable trying out ideas. Many state appellate courts have been televising oral arguments for years. The new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom does so, to high praise in Britain.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill from Senator Arlen Specter that would compel the court to permit televised coverage of all open sessions — unless a majority of justices decides that doing so would violate due process rights of one or both parties. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan testified in their confirmation hearings that they favor televising oral arguments. Justice Samuel Alito said he would support the practice if all the other justices were for it.

Senator Specter was right when he argued that the rights of all Americans would be “substantially enhanced” if we could watch the court reaching “critical decisions that affect this country.” If the court won’t agree on its own, then Congress should require it.