- Florida beach-goers told to beware flesh-eating bacteria in water
- Lundergan Grimes uses ‘war on women’ strategy to attack McConnell
- Rep. Jeff Miller: ‘Ain’t no leash for VA’
- Al Qaeda nets $125M from ransom payoffs from Europe since 2008
- Ohio Gov. John Kasich cruising to re-election: survey
- Landslide hits Indian village; 150 may be trapped
- Albania bank loses $7M in theft; police arrest 2
- Gov. Mike Pence irked as Obama sends illegals to Indiana on sly
- Israel, White House say Obama phone call to demand cease-fire was fake
- Nancy Pelosi: Deporting kids un-Christian, sends them ‘into a burning building’
MILLER: Supreme Court TV cancelled
Televised judicial proceedings would educate and ensure transparency
Question of the Day
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will wrap up its third day of oral arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare. Only a relative handful will have the privilege of witnessing this historic debate, as the high court refuses to allow its proceedings to be broadcast on television.
In 1979, C-SPAN opened the inner workings of the House of Representatives and later the Senate to the viewing public. It could do the same for the judicial branch. Nearly three-quarters of the public supports the concept, according to a Gallup poll.
But the idea gets mixed reviews on Capitol Hill. Televising court proceedings is a rare issue in Congress that seems to split more along lines of personal experience than party. Lawyers generally oppose it because they want to hold on to tradition. Those in favor of the change want increased transparency.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, a nonlawyer and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has been fighting for a decade to open all federal courts to public scrutiny through broadcast. The Iowa Republican went to observe the oral arguments himself on Tuesday. “I was sitting there with 250 other people watching, and I thought it was too bad that millions couldn’t watch it,” he told The Washington Times in an interview. “This is one of the most important cases in the last 50 years, and televised proceedings could educate people not just on this issue, but on a main branch of government.”
Mr. Grassley authored a bill that would require the Supreme Court to allow coverage of all open sessions. The only exception would be on an occasion in which a majority of the justices vote that doing so might violate due process rights of one of the parties.
Despite the public support, there doesn’t seem to be the political will on Capitol Hill to press the issue. The Senate bill passed the Judiciary Committee in February with about an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the vote.
Asked about timing for a floor vote, Mr. Grassley said he can’t do much in the minority, “but someone like [Sen. Charles E.] Schumer could force it to the floor.” The Washington Times asked Mr. Schumer, a member of leadership and co-sponsor of the bill, if it could get a vote this year. “I don’t think so,” said the New York Democrat. “No.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a lawyer, wants the courts to stay the same. “I agree with the chief justice and others that we don’t want to turn the Supreme Court into a circus,” the Kentucky Republican told The Washington Times on Tuesday. “I don’t think given the controversial nature of the subjects they deal with, having their faces familiar to everyone is necessary for the justices. I am strongly opposed to it.”
Chief Justice John Roberts has not ruled out allowing cameras in his court, but so far he has only allowed audio recording of proceedings. A majority of justices are opposed. The court’s newest members, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, are the biggest proponents. Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia hold the strongest views against the cameras, primarily because they fear it will turn the serious proceedings into silly entertainment. As the third branch of government, the court’s workings ought to be fully open so that the public can keep an eye on these lifetime appointments.
Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Emily Miller is senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times. She is the author of “Emily Gets Her Gun … But Obama Wants to Take Yours” (Regnery 2013). Miller won the 2012 Clark Mollenhoff Award for Investigative Reporting from the Institute on Political Journalism.
- MILLER: Mark Witaschek tax investigation follows D.C. conviction for muzzleloader bullet ammunition
- MILLER: Harry Reid's hypocrisy on 'Equal Pay Day': No women on top leadership staff
- MILLER: Maryland bathroom bill for transgenders is part of LGBT lobby for sex-change rights
- MILLER: Mark Witaschek surrenders to D.C. police 'Gun Offenders Registry'
- MILLER: Exclusive - Mark Witaschek takes the stand in D.C. shotgun shell trial
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Get Breaking Alerts
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Patent workers paid to exercise, shop, do chores: report
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Obama mum on where illegal immigrant children are sheltered
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- Defense lawyer: McDonnell's wife had 'crush' on CEO
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- Feds sue Pennsylvania State Police over women's fitness tests