Abstract
It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. Despite continued pressure from the press, Congress, and the public to allow cameras into oral arguments, the Justices have steadfastly refused.
The policy arguments for allowing cameras in the courtroom focus on cameras as a means to increased transparency of judicial work. Yet these arguments tend to gloss over a significant point about the Court — it is not secretive. The Court allows several avenues of access to its oral arguments including the presence of the public and the press in the audience, the daily release of transcripts, the weekly release of audio recordings and even some live-blogging. These various means of access make clear that this is not simply an issue of transparency versus secrecy. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court are, in all fairness, open and public events.
This raises the central question — why the fear of video cameras? After allowing so much access, why not add this additional avenue of communication with the public? Each time the Justices ascend to the bench, they know they are at the center of the most high-profile show in the American legal system. Why close this single door when the walls around them are made of glass? This Article seeks to answer that question by identifying the qualities of video that make an otherwise open Court suddenly so fearful.
Repository Citation
Sonja R. West,
The Monster in the Courtroom
, 2012 BYU L. Rev. 1953
(2012),
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/928
Originally uploaded at SSRN.