By Dennis J. Hutchinson. The justices, a majority of them, that is, apparently feel that their dignity, unlike that of the Florida court, will be compromised by a live, unedited telecast of their proceedings. But C-SPAN demonstrated in a test not long ago that limited fixed cameras are barely noticeable in the massive courtroom, and no sound equipment is necessary beyond the court's own system. No one was allowed to rest on rhetoric, and the judges themselves made sure that hard questions were addressed and nice points were fully developed.
Cameras distort what the court does.
This argument applies less to live, unedited coverage than to the fear of clips and sound bites. Even if acceptance of the election is not necessarily on the line Friday, viewers would understand better what the most powerful but least understood court in the world actually does when it hears a case. Television is vulgar. After the Florida court's performance, by judge and lawyer alike, Justice Kennedy's arch dismissal of televised coverage sounds hollow and terribly dated. Souter made his remark off the cuff in a congressional hearing on the court's budget four years ago, but if there is a reasoned position behind his acid comment he has yet to provide it.