Prop 8 Supreme Court hearing is best evidence yet for allowing cameras into the courtroom

By Peter Scheer

The California Supreme Court’s hearing yesterday in the Prop 8 case–broadcast live over the internet via streaming video–erased any doubt about the wisdom of allowing cameras into the nation’s courts.

Let’s hope US Supreme Court Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were watching the oral arguments on Prop 8’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. They are the camera-allergic justices who have publicly stated their opposition to televising the US Supreme Court’s oral arguments (and other public proceedings).

The video coverage of the Prop 8 proceeding is important not merely because of its educational value–although it certainly was educationally eye-opening to anyone who has not attended a Supreme Court argument. Broad public access to the Prop 8 arguments is essential because it will enhance the legitimacy of the Court’s eventual decision in a politically-charged and divisive case.

Viewers on both sides of Prop 8 saw the California Supreme Court justices struggling to make sense of the parties’ positions in the context of a continuum of legal precedent. While they may have expected to see a partisan foodfight, instead they saw thoughtful and well-informed judges asking questions of the lawyers to test the applicability of general legal principles to the specific facts of this case. It is an exercise that, among other things, highlights the complexity of the legal issues.

If, as seems likely from the justices’ questions, the Court upholds Prop 8 (while leaving intact the marriages held prior to the November election), Prop 8’s opponents will–because of the video coverage–be more inclined to respect that outcome. They will disagree with it; they will organize to reverse it through the political process; but they are not likely to believe in large numbers that they have been cheated by the judicial system.

Legitimacy, the most valuable asset of any court, is diminished by judicial secrecy and enhanced by openness. Justices of the US Supreme Court, take note.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print