Butt Out of Blackout

Contrary to UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's blunt opinion, there is no mystery why the Supreme Court holds oral arguments outside of the purview of a television camera. I think his personal invective, claiming that the "blackout" is a "national shame" displays the very partisanship and opinionated rhetoric which has no place in the discussions of judicial import.

Justice Scalia already asserted that the opportunity for splicing and misplacing the opinions of the justices would create more confusion than clarity. The former Justice David Souter declared that cameras would be allowed in the Supreme Court's chambers over his dead body. In a past hearing on the propriety of cameras in the courtroom, Justice Kennedy argued persuasively that a court of law is not a political entity, like Congress or the Executive Office. Moreover, Justice Souter's previous concerns about media coverage affecting the behavior of sitting judges as merit.

Moreover, the written opinions of the justices contributes more than enough erudition for columnists, legal scholars, and amateur opinion prognosticators on the up and coming cases. What would we gain from watching the oral arguments minute by minute? We would witness the demeanor of the justices as they pose lengthy fact patterns or ask brusk questions, interrupting the representing counsel like first year law students. Of course, Justice Thomas would continue to say nothing -- not much there to see.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the most august court in the land, one in which landmark cases decide the fate of widespread national legislation. There is simply no place for permitting the media to interject its presence. No one in this country is denied an appropriate understanding of judicial practice by not viewing the proceedings live.

Mr. Chemerinksy makes no real case for why the entire nation has a right or an advantage to hearing the proceedings of the states-wide case taking down the Patient and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. The Law School dean's biased favor for this legislation is hardly commendable, as he labels the legislation "one of the most important pieces of economic legislation passed by Congress since the New Deal". It's unfortunate that the lawyer-scholar did not indicate the encroachment of the state into the daily workings of the American people and the states, which has pushed twenty-two states and counting to sue and strike down this legislation. More than two-thirds of the country have been polled and still find this attempt to force insurance on everyone as unpopular manifestation of Big Government.

The Sixth Amendment declares that defendants will have the right to a "speedy and public" trial, but regarding appellate hearings and civil cases, the Constitution remains conspicuously silent. Generally, the American people do not need to hear every word and watch every nuance of the Supreme Court justices in order to appreciate the implications of this imposing legislation, and whether the justices will uphold, strike down, or accept in part this monstrous overreach into the lives of the American people.