For Democracy's Sake, Supreme Court, Let the Cameras In

It's by far the most closely-watched Supreme Court case of its generation, yet only a miniscule fraction of Americans will be able to see it live.

supreme court camera-body.jpg


Pardon me for being such a drag on the eve of the Supreme Court's momentous health care arguments, but I respectfully dissent. There is something discordant here, something that just doesn't feel right. While the legal and political elite gleefully plan their big week at the High Court, while members of the Washington establishment applaud themselves for their inside connections to the courtroom, the rest of the country will be left, as usual, in the dark. The contrast gives new meaning to the phrase "unequal justice."

Starting next Monday, for three consecutive days, two hours a day, the justices will hear oral argument in three joined cases that are primed to determine the immediate fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the controversial new federal health care law. Together, the three cases (out of Florida) are the most closely watched Supreme Court cases since Bush v. Gore, for they have the potential to determine the outcome of the next presidential election and not just pick a winner in the last one.

The Supreme Court continues to maintain the fiction that it's "public enough" to allow 400 or so people into a courtroom.

Last week, to mark the occasion and to reflect the state of eagerness over the arguments, Janet Adamy and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal wrote a memorable piece -- an instant classic -- detailing how Washington insiders have been clamoring for seats at the Court next week. There are only 400 seats inside the courtroom and there are evidently four schmillion lawyers, lobbyists, doctors, and politicians scrambling for the chance to be able to lie by telling their descendants that they weren't bored to death watching the Care Act show.

People interested in seeing some or all of the arguments next week will be camping out overnight for seats. It's going to be just like a tailgate at a Redskins' game, only with law geeks instead of "Hogs!" Meanwhile, men and women of means and persuasion are putting the screws to their "inside" connections for a chance to see the action. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia evidently hooked up Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm's brother, with a ticket to at least one edition of next week's show. Here's another cheesy example from the Journal's piece:

Some attorneys hoping for a seat during the health-care arguments have plunked down $200 to join the Supreme Court Bar, which has its own line that some people predict will be shorter than the lines for the public. Members also have access to a 60-seat lawyers' lounge where they can listen to a live audio feed.

Ugh, lawyers! Always finding loopholes. (P.S. Memo to Supreme Court Bar: Raise your membership fee; make those clever, rich Washington lawyers help pay for indigent defense work!) So essentially, next week there will be two classes of people. There will be those few locals who are patient, hardy, or well-connected enough to hear the epic arguments unfold at the court in real time. And there will be those who aren't. It's like the "99 percent / 1 percent" meme, only the currency here instead is universal access to the public work of governance.

The Washington insiders who will swarm into the courtroom next week would say, in response, that they represent a welcome form of collegiality that is sorely lacking on Capitol Hill and at other public government venues inside the Beltway. Fair enough. But my point isn't that laypeople should be allowed into the room next week while professionals are kept out. My point is that the Supreme Court continues to maintain the fiction that it's "public enough" to allow 400 or so people into a courtroom, and yet it shuts the doors on the rest of America.

Presented by

Andrew Cohen is a contributing editor at The Atlantic. He is a legal analyst for 60 Minutes and CBS Radio News, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Commentary Editor at The Marshall Project

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well. Bestselling author Mark Bittman teaches James Hamblin the recipe that everyone is Googling.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in National

Just In