Lights, cameras, courts

In a break from the more partisan issues Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch had to face during his confirmation hearing last week, he was also asked whether he believes cameras should be allowed in the nation’s highest court.

The federal appeals court judge said he has “an open mind” on the issue — which is more than one can say about many of his future colleagues.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in 2015 that cameras might cause justices and lawyers to succumb to “this temptation to use it as a stage rather than a courtroom.” Justice Anthony Kennedy raised similar issues in a 2008 interview. And that’s unfortunate. Some federal courts have been “experimenting” with cameras. The 9th Circuit last month allowed live coverage of argument on the president’s travel ban order.

Most state courts, including those in Massachusetts, have been open to cameras (still and video) for years with little or no impact on the delivery of justice in those courtrooms — except to make it more accessible to the public. Sessions of the state Supreme Judicial Court have been livestreamed since 2005. And this month the Herald has participated in the livestreaming of the Aaron Hernandez murder trial.

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DMinn.), who asked the camera question of Gorsuch, and U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are co-sponsors of a bill to allow cameras during open proceedings in all federal courts. Of course, it also stipulates that the presiding judge — or the justices of the Supreme Court — would have the final word on the matter. So it might, in the end, only be a congressional nudge in the right direction.

It would be far better if the high court itself saw the wisdom of opening up its proceedings as a way to educate the public on the important role it plays in our democracy.