EDITORIAL: Public deserves televised access to the constitutional fight over health care reform

Mar 28, 2012 (The Oregonian - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- The Supreme Court just heard one of the blockbuster cases of this generation, and the public got to watch ... video footage of protesters.

Not the action inside the building. Not the riveting arguments by some of the best lawyers in the country. Just the expected parade of people wielding signs and yelling at each other across an ideological divide.

That's a missed opportunity, considering the intense public interest. The high court has done a disservice with its stubborn refusal to allow television cameras -- even a single, unobtrusive video camera -- into the nation's most important courtroom.

The oral arguments in the constitutional fight over national health care reform ended Wednesday. The judges are expected to rule by summer. The case has riveted the public, both in spite of the legal complexities and because of them: Can Congress force citizens to buy products? What will become of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama's top domestic achievement? These questions matter not just to constitutional scholars or political junkies, but to everyone with a stake in the cost and quality of health care.

Yet the public wasn't allowed to watch the nine justices wrestling with the law, probing at it with the fearless finesse of an elite bomb squad.

No, TV watchers were left to "Judge Judy." (This week's cases include a mother-daughter dispute over bail money, plus something about a limo driver who jilted a couple on their wedding day. Historic too, no doubt.) The court did release same-day transcripts and audio of the oral arguments in this case, a small but welcome concession. And yes, media outlets could certainly illustrate their stories with those charming sketches of courtroom scenes. But the lack of video footage was distressing, not just for its news value but also its educational merit: Think of law students at Lewis & Clark who could have witnessed the arguments in real time.

Or Oregon high school students in civics or social studies classes seeing history being made.

Or ordinary citizens at home in Portland or Coos Bay or Grants Pass giving themselves a primer on constitutional law.

Some of the court's longer-serving justices say they worry about compromising the decorum of the courts, or jeopardizing their own privacy, by televising the court's proceedings. But many federal and state courts, including in Oregon and Washington, allow video without any noticeable ill effect on the court's professionalism.

As for privacy, the justices are already public figures; the Internet is replete with photographs and video images of them. They have privacy rights in their homes, but not on the job, doing the nation's business.

When the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore in 2000, the public was evenly split on the matter of televising court proceedings. Today, support is widespread: About 72 percent of Americans now say the court should allow cameras. The public agrees with former Chief Justice Warren Burger, who once wrote in a case about public access to the lower courts, "(T)he appearance of justice can best be provided by allowing people to observe it." It's time for the court to follow its own lofty advice about transparency and openness. The justices can't hide forever behind a curtain, expecting citizens to be satisfied with televised sideshows instead of the real thing.

___ (c)2012 The Oregonian (Portland, Ore.) Visit The Oregonian (Portland, Ore.) at www.oregonian.com Distributed by MCT Information Services

[ Back To Homepage ]

Real time alerts

The World's Largest Communications And Technology Community

Technology Marketing Corporation,
800 Connecticut Ave, 1st Floor East, Norwalk, CT 06854 USA
Ph: 800-243-6002, 203-852-6800; Fx: 203-866-3326
General comments: tmc@tmcnet.com. Comments about this site: webmaster@tmcnet.com.

» About » Contact » Advertise