|
 |
 |
|
Supreme Court as reality TV is bad law
It’s official. America’s insatiable thirst for reality television has made its way into the halls of the U.S. Congress.
If a few of my colleagues have their way, the U.S. Supreme Court chambers could become the latest reality TV mess. As three straight days of oral arguments about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care law start Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court, chants by those who want cameras in the courtroom have grown louder.
On Dec. 6, 2011, Rep. Gerry Connolly introduced H.R. 3572: the Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2011, which would alter a long-standing rule and permit television coverage of all open sessions of the U.S. Supreme Court unless the justices determine television coverage would violate a litigant’s due process rights.
Supporters of the bill argue that television coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court proceedings will provide the American public with greater transparency and access to the Court. In contrast, opponents contend the rule should stay in place in the interest of maintaining the integrity and decorum that should be afforded to the highest court in the land.
Although supporters argue banning the recording of Supreme Court proceedings limits transparency, how would televising courtroom proceedings benefit the American people? The Supreme Court currently posts written and audio transcripts of all open proceedings.
Any decision by Congress to impose its will upon the Supreme Court would impugn our fundamental doctrine of separation of powers, enshrined in our Constitution. The separation of powers doctrine is based upon the idea of the separate and co-equal branches of government where no single branch is more important than the other two and cannot require another branch to act or acquiesce.
I believe the Judiciary must have the power to manage its own operations in order to function as a co-equal branch of government. No other branch of government is subject to micromanagement by another. There is no legal basis requiring that the Judiciary cede its authority to allow cameras in its chambers.
It would be unthinkable for Congress to pass a law mandating that the White House allow cameras in all cabinet meetings unless the president decides that national security would not be compromised.
The Congress itself has determined which of its activities are open to cameras, and which are not. This is allowable according to the separation of powers doctrine. I think that Congress would do the nation harm should it attempt to manage operations of another branch.
If legislators can compel the highest court of the land to allow cameras in the courtroom, where would we draw the line limiting Congress’ authority? Congress could have carte blanche to determine the hours of court house operation, limitations on Court recesses, or the maximum number of vacation days that the justices could take during the calendar year.
The proposed legislation could lead to a constitutional crisis similar to the Watergate scandal, which triggered impeachment action against the president for committing the high crime of obstruction of justice.
During Watergate, the Court ordered the president to turn over White House tapes to Congress and President Nixon refused on the grounds of executive privilege. A similar dilemma could occur if the Supreme Court decided to disobey the legislation, and instead insist upon protecting their prerogative to manage itself independent of the Legislature.
As I consider the implications of Congress trying to dictate to the Judiciary, I reach a simple conclusion: this bill would make bad law.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
