New Legislation Would Mandate Cameras in Federal Courts
BY Miranda Neubauer | Wednesday, December 7 2011
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing yesterday on bipartisan legislation, introduced by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), that would require the Supreme Court to televise its proceedings.
Federal courts have been historically resistant to televised proceedings, even in an age of ubiquitous C-SPAN video streaming. One recent example is California's Prop. 8 proceedings, which a federal judge had recorded despite rulings that prohibited those tapes from being released. Later, another federal ruling allowed the release of that video.
In support of the bill, Amy Klobuchar, the subcommittee chair, responded to criticism that the justices might censor themselves.
"I don’t think Justice Ginsburg is going to turn into Judge Judy,” she said.
Former U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, once chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, also testified:
People need to know what the Court is doing to guarantee that the public can let the Court know when the public's values are not being recognized. In any event, in a free society, the public is entitled to the maximum transparency in its governmental institutions. Justice Louis Brandeis was right when he said sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was more skeptical.
"If it ain't broke, don’t fix it," he said. "We should take very serious [the court's view] and respect it. It's their domain."
A lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, Maureen Mahoney, also testified the Senate may not legally be allowed to pass the law, ABC News reported.
"There is a serious reason to believe that legislation overturning the Supreme Court's policy would be unconstitutional," she argued.
Meanwhile, via @katz, no electronics or Internet communication will be allowed in the courtroom for journalists covering the preliminary hearing in the Jerry Sandusky case.