Court TV: Justices pressured on ObamaCare

From March 26 to 28, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will hear 5½ hours of oral argument, spread over three days, on a matter that affects every American and may influence the 2012 elections: the challenge of 26 states to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate in ObamaCare.

But Americans won't be allowed to watch the proceedings, at all. The high court has given no indication it will relent on its ban of live courthouse broadcasts.

An argument often put forward for barring television cameras from court proceedings is the fear that lawyers might preen, strut and engage in other theatrics designed to impress the audience watching from home, rather than focusing on the subject at hand in a more serious manner.

But that's not the concern the court has expressed most often, of late. Rather, the justices appear to be shy.

Justice David Souter, who retired in 2009, said at a 1996 House hearing, "The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."

Other justices to raise concern about cameras include Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justices Kennedy and Thomas said at a 2007 House hearing that they feared cameras would change the dynamic among the justices and strip them of their anonymity.

"There's something sick about making entertainment about real people's legal problems," Justice Scalia said in a 2005 interview with CNBC. "I don't like it in the lower courts and I don't particularly like it in the Supreme Court."

Yes, some decorum is in order. No one would want the Supreme Court to hear cases in a ballpark, with partisan cheering encouraged along with organ interludes and vendors peddling hot dogs.

But the desire of a justice to be able to go to the grocery store without being recognized is not sufficient reason to justify turning the high court into a technology-free zone, barring spectators from using recording devices, telephones and cameras, which is precisely what they've done.

Justices are now considering requests from a dozen lawmakers and more than 30 media organizations seeking live coverage access. Petitioners contend there's a strong national interest in watching live arguments over an issue that touches everyone and affects the economy and presidential election. In fact, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is pushing legislation requiring the court to allow cameras unless a majority of justices conclude coverage would violate a party's rights to due process.

Of course, because the branches of government are supposed to be separate and equal, it's not clear the court would pay any attention to such an edict.

But television has been a part of American culture for two generations -- live radio for nearly a century. This is not a "passing phase." There was also a day when important decisions of government were committed to sheepskin scrolls, and then carried via slave galley to the various regional capitals to be read aloud in the town square.

Would that be traditional enough?

Change can be deliberate and sensible. But change must come, nevertheless.