RTDNA, Coalition respond to Justices on cameras

February 3, 2015 04:00

The Coalition for Court Transparency, of which RTDNA is a member, today expressed disappointment at recent remarks by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and renewed its call for live audio/visual coverage of the upcoming same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court. Open government is essential to a well-functioning democracy, and cameras in the Supreme Court would provide Americans with much-needed access to the highest court in the land.

In recent public appearances, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have expressed concern that cameras in the Supreme Court would lead to grandstanding. Both justices had previously spoken favorably of putting cameras in the courtroom during their confirmation hearings:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 2009 confirmation hearing: “I have had positive experiences with cameras. When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered.” July 14, 2009
Justice Elena Kagan, 2010 confirmation hearing: “I have said that I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom. […] I think it would be a great thing for the institution, and more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people.” June 29, 2010[1]

In spite of their new concerns, experience in Canada and in U.S. state supreme courts suggests that grandstanding is not a problem when proceedings are broadcast. The Canadian Supreme Court has broadcast proceedings since 1993, and cameras have not diluted the substance of arguments or disrupted the decorum. Instead, as Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin remarked, they have “contributed to public confidence” in the court by opening it to “many citizens across the country.”[2] Similarly, Ohio State Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor has noted that video streaming in her court has not led to grandstanding.[3]

Advocates before the Supreme Court are professionals – and they know the only audience they need to convince is the nine justices before them.

“If the Supreme Court is going to continue to refuse to allow audio/visual coverage of its proceedings, the justices at least owe the American people a reasonable explanation,” said Alex Armstrong, spokesperson for the Coalition. “The Coalition for Court Transparency – and 74 percent of Americans – continues to agree that cameras in the courtroom ‘would be a great thing for the American people.’”

“As long-time advocates for electronic news coverage in the Supreme Court, RTDNA is particularly disappointed to see these recent remarks by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor,” said Mike Cavender, RTDNA Executive Director. “We hope they and the other Justices will consider closely the growing amount of evidence that audio and video recordings of the Court’s proceedings will result in only one thing—a more enlightened and better-informed public.”
[1] Coalition for Court Transparency, “The Justices in their Own Words on Cameras in the Supreme Court.” See: http://www.openscotus.com/Justices%20on%20cameras%20in%20the%20Court%20FINAL.pdf
[2] Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, “Remarks on the Relationship Between Courts and the Media” (Jan. 31, 2012), available at http://bit.ly/1fqxgYl
[3] The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “Technology and Transparency at the Supreme Court” (Oct. 25, 2013). See: http://www.c-span.org/video/?315864-1/supreme-court-transparency