Constitutional Law

Alito lays out concerns about cameras in high court

By By The Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa ? Televising U.S. Supreme Court hearings may provide a glimpse at how the Court works but also could threaten to relay the wrong impression that the justices? work on cases is limited to what is shown on TV, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said yesterday.

Alito weighed in on the question of cameras in the high court during his presentation of the Dwight D. Opperman Lecture in Constitutional Law in front of hundreds of students, faculty and staff at Drake University.

During the hourlong lecture, Alito used the history of the Court to raise the concerns he has with allowing cameras in the chamber.

In the late 1700s, when justices wore powdered wigs and red robes, it wasn't uncommon for oral arguments in a single case to take days, he said. In the modern court, the robes are black, many oral arguments have been replaced by written briefs and hearings are limited to an hour.

He said many hearings consist of justices interrupting attorneys and asking unrelated questions that don't follow a "logical order."

"What would ordinary viewers think?" Alito said.

He said that although televising the Court's oral arguments could provide the public a better understanding of what the Court does, it could be misleading.

"In reality, that is not even the tip of the iceberg," Alito said. "Many hours of study and thinking will have been devoted to the case before the argument takes place."

He suggested that if hearings were to be televised attorneys should be given a certain amount of uninterrupted time at the beginning to argue their case and that justices be give allotted time to ask questions, similar to what happens during congressional hearings.

Alito said arguments to the Court are already public, with transcripts available online and audio recordings of the arguments being released at the end of each two-week session.

Alito said he also worried that televising hearings could change the nature of the proceedings, comparing it to the Court's early days when attorneys would give colorful and flamboyant arguments to entertain the public that attended the hearings.

"Whenever an event is televised and the participants think any sort of substantial audience is watching, their behavior is changed," Alito said.

He used televised Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings as an example.

In many cases where the arguments would be very technical in nature, he said he had "little doubt viewership would reach historic lows."

But in cases of larger national significance, he said the effect could be noticeable.

"We saw in the arguments going back to the early days, even the most distinguished and renowned advocates altered their presentation to the court to play to the audience," Alito said.

Full post as published by First Amendment Center on September 30, 2010 (boomark / email).