Update: Here's what Justice Kennedy said in opposition to televising the Supreme Court:
[It would] change our collegial dynamic. And we hope that this respect that separation of powers and checks and balances implies would persuade you to accept our judgment in this regard.
Collegial dynamic? What about the dynamic of open government? And if he's so worried about respecting the separation of powers, he should have voted against the Court electing the president in 2000.
Virtually all the justices of the Supreme Court, past and present, have opposed letting all Americans into their oral argument sessions. There have been some gestures toward openness, such as audio in some cases, but right now the only way the public can see the court in action is to travel to Washington, DC and wait on line for the few seats that are available. As the WaPo said in an editorial:
Some 70 members of the public queued up in frigid conditions early yesterday -- some camping out overnight -- for a chance to witness the historic Supreme Court argument on the rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Thanks to more progressive thinking of late from the justices, those who couldn't squeeze into the courtroom could listen to the proceedings on C-SPAN or read the transcript released that afternoon. But no one outside the courtroom could watch, because the justices prohibit television cameras in the court.
Congress resisted TV for decades, arguing that public exposure would somehow undermine their deliberations. Of course, televised proceedings of Congress are now an accepted part of our political life - CSPAN's Brian Lamb recently received a Medal of Freedom for his work on television Congress. The Supreme Court is already too isolated from Americans' life -- they should bring in the cameras. Maybe they'll even figure out this YouTube thing that everyone's talking about.
