The Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation on Thursday that would require Supreme Court proceedings to be televised.
Supporters of the bill, which passed 11-7, say Americans should have a chance to watch the high court as it deliberates cases that often have a direct impact on their daily lives. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pointed in particular to the importance of allowing the public to watch the Supreme Court’s consideration next month of a challenge to President Obama’s health care law. He noted that the committee has asked the Supreme Court to release a recording of the high-court’s arguments over the Affordable Care Act, which will take place at the end of March, on the same day the proceedings take place. So far the high court has not committed to such a move, Leahy said.
While the bill does enjoy bipartisan support, similar measures approved by the committee in past years have not been taken up by the full Senate. And given the difficulty these days in moving almost any bill to the Senate floor, it is unclear whether the legislation will fare any better this year.
The public can attend Supreme Court proceedings but there are only about 250 seats and they are given out on a first-come basis. The court releases audio tapes of its arguments at the end of the week, but it does not provide real-time remote access to its proceedings.
“Supreme Court decisions…affect everyone’s lives,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who offered the bill along with Judiciary ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, “In a democratic society that values transparency and participation, there is no justification for such a powerful element of government to operate largely outside the view of the American people.”
The bill would require that all open proceedings of the Supreme Court be televised. It would provide an exception allowing for a majority of the Supreme Court justices to vote to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis if broadcasting a session would violate the due process rights of one or more of the parties.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who opposed the bill, noted several current and former justices have spoken out against televising Supreme Court proceedings. She said that in some instances televising proceedings have harmed the judicial process -- for instance the 1995 televised murder trial of former football star O.J. Simpson.
“I don’t believe we should tell the Supreme Court what to do. We are separate branches of government,” Feinstein said. “I do not believe that justice is better because it is televised. And I have seen actual situations in my view where it is worse because it’s televised.”
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
Leave a Comment