Unlike many other public officials, judges typically can go out in public without being recognized. If so, too high a price is being paid to allow judges to go to the supermarket in peace. There are significant benefits to allowing camera coverage, especially in a critical case like this. Most likely, our founding fathers would say no. It would be impossible to build a courtroom large enough to hold all the Americans with a keen interest in litigation affecting the presidential race.
Camera coverage is the next best thing.
The experience of the states is instructive. Forty-eight allow camera coverage in at least some court proceedings, and studies in 28 states show television coverage of court proceedings has important social and educational benefits. Even judges like television coverage more after they've had experience with it. A 1991-93 pilot project in the federal courts found that judges who had been neutral tended to become favorable once they'd had firsthand experience with cameras. Television coverage of the Supreme Court should be permitted.