It seems unlikely.
The Washington Post reported that the Supreme Court will continue to prohibit televising of Supreme Court hearings despite public desire. Justice Alito, who before taking the bench argued for having hearings televised, has joined the court in a collective view to the contrary. Alito argued, “allowing the arguments to be televised would undermine their value to [the court] as a step in the decision making process”. He believes that attorney’s grandstanding would detract from the value of the hearings, emphasizing that the court does not want “access to the public to come at the expense of the decision making process.”
Justice Kagan addressed the pros and cons of this issue. She addressed how although there is a benefit to the public to see a governmental instrument working together to make thoughtful decisions, the functionality of the court trumps transparency. Justice Kagan explains how justices play devil’s advocate in order to reach sound decisions but these opposing arguments are not always indicative on their opinions on the issue. The justice fears that this could be taken out of context on camera and in the media. In short, the justices agreed that “good decision making would be damaged if there were cameras.” However, Justice Alito commented that the court, as a group, has not discussed this issue since she took the bench in 2010. For now, the public’s best insight to the process of the Supreme Court is still through their decisions.
Read the full article by Robert Barnes below:
Watch the full clip of Justices Alito and Kagan discussing this on C-SPAN below: