Courts make news, but they do not exist to provide entertainments.  They exist for a serious purpose.  Cameras have no place in a court of law.  Keep them out.

When you observe the grandstanding that has come to characterize Congress since the introduction of television cameras, it becomes obvious there is no place for them in court, let alone the Supreme Court.

The Instant Gratification Generation cries out for more.

Seriously? Do they really want the Supreme Court to start behaving with all the grand standing antics of the OJ Simpson trial or Judge Judy?  Every public venue I can think of, from local televised County Commission meetings to US Presidential Debates to C-SPAN coverage of the floor of the US Senate has led to a degradation of statesmanship and civility.

I think the best thing the country could possibly do would be to eliminate TV coverage of the US Congress. Other than a State of the Union address, when was the last time you remember seeing more than like 2 people sitting in the assigned chairs when a debate was actually going on on the floor of the House or Senate? Senators and Representatives just sit in their comfy offices with lobbyists whistling poison in their ears and only appear on the floor when they are presenting or voting. It has completely shortchanged both the idea of the filibuster as well as simple open dialogue and debate. Maybe if the majority of congressmen actually had to be on the floor to know what was going on, more meaningful (and shorter) legislation might be produced.

One of the problems with the legal system is that it is judged by a few anecdotal cases. TV is already in thousands of trials in the state courts and it is controlled by court rules. Lance Ito and Judge Judy are not representitive of the system. I think the public should hear the great issues debated since the supreme court affects their lives as much as congress. As a judge, I have lived with TV in court for over 20 years.

#5—I think it should be televised for two reasons.  First, the pillars of our Republic should not operate in secret, but should be open for all to see—the good, the bad and the ugly. Second, I suspect the average person has no clue what a Supreme Court argument is really like.  When I was younger I tolerated well the give and take banter of oral argument;  but now, after having been in practice for over 30 years, I hate going to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court because it is like being a law student all over again, being lorded over by all-powerful professors. I think most people would be shocked to actually see it, and most would also be bored to death. The reality of day-to-day law practice has very little to do with any televison show or movie ever produced. And the often esoteric nature of oral argument is does not lend itself to theater.

A transcript is fine. Video would find its way into political commercials and reduce the dignity of the court.

“National shame?” Please.

No. 8, I was wondering that myself. I think that we should be proud that we have at least one branch of government that still sees fit not to prostitute itself to the masses.

Very bad idea.  I can tell you as a lawyer that if TV cameras are in the courtroom, everyone starts playing to the cameras. Especially true for large public policy cases such as the Supreme Court often handles.  It will politicize the whole oral argument process.