Yesterday I blogged about the Supreme Court’s decision to seal the majestic front doors for security purposes. In Justice Breyer’s “dissent,” he noted that this decision works to the detriment of the public at large.
It stands to reason that if the Court refuses to throw the public a bone on something as small as entry through the front door–something very few people will ever be able to actually do–it is likely that the Court seriously does not care enough to allow cameras in the courtroom.
Cameras would be a huge change, and perhaps a boon to the public at large to learn about the proceedings. I personally question whether cameras in SCOTUS would be a good idea, but a significant portion of the public seems to want this. However, I don’t think the Court, other than Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, really consider that public sentiment an important factor in their decision-making process.
If the Congress passes a bill requiring cameras at One First Street, I wonder whether the Court would have the chutzpah to strike down that law as unconstitutional. Now that, would be interesting.