The top lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee have joined the chorus of organizations requesting that the Supreme Court allow live broadcast coverage of the upcoming announcement of its historic health care decisions.
Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts today, which states that the broadcast would bolster public confidence in the judicial system and in the court's decisions.
"Modem technology makes televising the proceedings simple and unobtrusive," the senators wrote. "A minimal number of cameras in the courtroom, which could be placed to be barely noticeable to all participants, would provide live coverage of what may be one of the most historic rulings of our time."
The Court should be aware of the great interest Americans have in the outcome of this case, the Senators said, "given the fundamental constitutional questions raised and the effects the decision will have."
Leahy and Grassley attended arguments in the case earlier this year. Both are longtime advocates of allowing broadcast coverage of federal court proceedings, and they support allowing camera coverage of Supreme Court proceedings.
The exact date of the decision is of course unknown. The Court announced last week that justices would be sitting on Thursday to issue decisions, and several sittings are also expected next week, at the end of which the Court is likely to adjourn for the summer. But the Court never lets it be known in advance which decisions will be issued on which days.
Last week, a coalition of news organizations asked for the same live broadcast. The letter from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press points out that the concerns expressed by some justices about broadcasting oral arguments — such as the possibility that it would change the dynamics between lawyers and justices — would not be at issue in broadcasting the mere announcement by justices of a summary of their own opinions.
Among the media organizations joining in last week’s letter are ALM Media, publisher of The National Law Journal and this blog, as well as C-SPAN, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA TODAY, NPR, ABC, CBS and NBC.
A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A similar media coalition asked the Court last November for broadcast access to the historic health care oral arguments spread over three days in late March.
It is time that this country that is of the people, for the people and by the people be returned to the people. Now is the time! Do not remain silent while our rights are taken away!
Posted by: D A Weaver | June 28, 2012 at 01:23 PM
I agree with 11:44 am. The written opinion is what is important. Very well said regarding reality tv and what SCOTUS 'owes' the public. There have been hundreds of very important decisions from SCOTUS over the years. What we want is a well reasoned opinion, not a side show or a ratings grabber, and all we can ask is that SCOTUS posts the full written opinion as soon as possible to their website.
Posted by: Interested | June 20, 2012 at 12:05 PM
I fail to understand the facination with hearing this decision "live." The written decision is what will be reviewed, dissected and interpreted. The holding will be the key to what will remain (all, some, none) of the law. Other than the bringing of SCOTUS into the realm of reality TV, or somehow feeding the efforts of some to influence the Court's decisions, I don't see the point, nor do I think SCOTUS owes the public anything but a well-reasoned opinion, either way.
Posted by: Nat Fitzsimmons | June 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM
SCOTUS owes this to the country. Their reported concerns about influencing the exchanges during oral argument are not applicable at this stage. Moreover, if the Justice in the majority opts to read the full opinion rather than a brief summary, or if a dissenting Justice decides to read a dissent, it must be because he or she deems it important enough to speak rather than just release the paper. The American people deserve to see the face and hear the voice of the justice in that event. There can be no legitimate justification for limiting the number witnessing the reading to the 250 souls the current courtroom accommodates.
Posted by: Rethinking | June 19, 2012 at 09:28 PM