Some suspect, and some judges confirm,3 that a key reason some judges oppose cameras in courtrooms is that they value their privacy. 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 have approved of televised court proceedings.
Camera coverage is the next best thing.
The experience of the states is instructive. Even judges like television coverage more after they've had experience with it. Perhaps the best instruction comes from Congress, which permitted camera coverage in 1977, and the Senate, which followed in 1986. It is not supposed to be mysterious to the public it serves. Among them are proposals for improved voting equipment and for changes in the Electoral College.